G.R. No. L-463; May 31, 1947
MARIA VIQUIERA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO BARAÑA y ANTONIO VILLARAMA, as Judicial Administrators of the Estate of the deceased Enrique Velasquez, AND ANOTHER, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In Special Proceeding No. 5487 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Maria Viquiera sought the probate of a document she claimed was the will of her deceased husband, Enrique Velasquez. Pedro Baraña, a nephew of the deceased, opposed. On March 25, 1941, the court denied probate. Viquiera appealed, and the case was docketed as G.R. No. 48763 . The last day for filing her brief was September 25, 1942. On that date, Atty. Francisco filed a motion for a 30-day extension, claiming that Viquiera’s original counsel, Atty. Restituto Reyes, had requested his services because Reyes’s case files, including this one, were destroyed in a fire in San Fernando, Pampanga, and Reyes had accepted the position of Chief of Police. The Supreme Court denied this motion on October 5, 1942, and dismissed the appeal. A motion for reconsideration filed on October 14, alleging the motion was mailed on September 25, was denied on October 23 because the postal stamp showed it was mailed on September 26, 1942. After liberation, Viquiera, through new counsel Atty. Natividad, filed motions in the Supreme Court to set aside the dismissal, arguing the October 5 and 23, 1942 resolutions were null under General MacArthur’s proclamation and that Atty. Francisco had acted without her knowledge. These motions were denied on August 18, 1944, and December 4, 1945. Subsequently, on December 18, 1945, Viquiera filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the estate administrators and Atty. Francisco. Her first cause of action sought to annul the Supreme Court’s October 5, 1942 resolution and declare her right to file a brief. Her second cause of action sought damages from Atty. Francisco. The trial court, on January 22, 1946, dismissed the complaint as to the administrators (Baraña and Villarama) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Viquiera appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the complaint against the co-administrators on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to annul a final and executory resolution of the Supreme Court, even if allegedly obtained through fraud.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The Court held that the October 5, 1942 resolution dismissing the appeal had become final and executory on November 4, 1942. The Court reiterated that an extension of time to file a brief can only be granted for good cause and if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Granting an extension after the period has expired is not an extension but the grant of a new period, which is not allowed under the Rules. The facts alleged in the first cause of action were the same grounds already raised and rejected by the Supreme Court in Viquiera’s previous motions for reconsideration. No court, not even the Supreme Court itself, can revoke a final and executory judgment. The purpose of organizing courts is to put an end to controversies. The Court found no allegation that the appellees (the administrators) had induced the failure to file the brief; they merely did nothing, which does not constitute fraud that would warrant annulment. The appealed order was confirmed with costs against the appellant.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Perfecto concurred in the result. He opined that judicial processes during the Japanese regime were null and void, including the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Viquiera’s appeal. He believed Viquiera was entitled to her day in court. However, since the Supreme Court on December 4, 1945, had erroneously denied her relief, all doors for judicial remedy were closed. He disagreed with pronouncements in the main decision implying an identity between the present Supreme Court and the one that functioned during the enemy occupation, stating their sources of authority were completely different (the Filipino people vs. the Emperor of Japan).