G.R. No. L-44886. January 31, 1979.
Nora Villamayor (Also known as Nora Aunor), petitioner, vs. The Hon. Leonor Ines Luciano, Presiding Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City and Luciano M. Dominguez, respondents.

FACTS

In guardianship proceedings for the minor Nora Villamayor (Nora Aunor), private respondent Atty. Luciano M. Dominguez filed a motion for payment of his legal retainer’s fees. On December 4, 1974, the respondent court ordered the guardian to pay Dominguez P108,000.00 within thirty days. This order did not provide for the payment of any interest on the awarded amount. Due to non-compliance, Dominguez sought execution. The court, on April 3, 1975, ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for P108,000.00 “plus legal interests thereon from December 4, 1974.” A writ was issued, and Dominguez subsequently collected amounts exceeding the principal P108,000.00.
The petitioner filed a motion to declare the April 3, 1975 order null and void for requiring interest and to seek a refund of excess payments. On September 2, 1976, the respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion for the time being and ordered further proceedings. Petitioner Nora Villamayor then filed this certiorari petition, arguing the orders modifying the final December 4, 1974 judgment by adding interest were issued without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders dated April 3, 1975 and September 2, 1976, which required the payment of legal interest on the principal award of P108,000.00, when the original final and executory order of December 4, 1974 contained no such provision for interest.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the assailed orders. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the court’s jurisdiction to amend them. The order of December 4, 1974, which awarded P108,000.00 without stipulating any interest, had become final and executory. A final judgment can no longer be amended or modified, except for clerical errors or to make it conform to what was intended by the court. The subsequent orders of April 3, 1975 and September 2, 1976, which imposed legal interest, constituted a substantive alteration of the final judgment. Citing Robles vs. Timario, the Court held it is beyond a court’s power to issue execution for interest when the judgment itself contains no provision for it. Therefore, the respondent court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
The Court rejected the defense of estoppel. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be bestowed by the parties’ consent or by estoppel. A void order, issued without jurisdiction, remains invalid regardless of any alleged acquiescence. The petitioner’s claim for a refund of excess payment further negated any clear ratification of the unauthorized interest. Consequently, the orders requiring interest were nullified.