G.R. No. L-74848. May 20, 1987
HOUDINI IBABAO, NENITA IBABAO and GENOVEVA IBABAO, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LXXXI (Formerly Court of First Instance of Romblon), SALVADOR RICO, LILIA RICO MINANO, MILAGROS RICO GLORI and GEORGE RICO, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from consolidated proceedings involving land ownership. Private respondents (Rico heirs) filed Civil Case No. V-841 for quieting of title against petitioners (Ibabao heirs). The trial court dismissed the complaint on June 21, 1979, declaring petitioners as owners of certain lots. No timely appeal was filed, rendering the decision final. Subsequently, private respondents filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment. The records of this petition were destroyed by fire, leading to its reconstitution. The trial court dismissed the reconstituted petition for relief on July 13, 1983. Private respondents appealed this dismissal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), docketed as AC-G.R. CV No. UDK 1998.
While that appeal was pending, private respondents filed a separate Petition for Annulment of Judgment (AC-G.R. SP No. 01875) before a different division of the IAC, challenging the same 1979 trial court decision. This annulment petition was dismissed by the IAC on October 28, 1983, and the Supreme Court affirmed its dismissal in G.R. No. 66141, which became final on July 9, 1984. Meanwhile, in the appeal of the dismissed petition for relief (UDK 1998), the IAC issued a resolution on May 15, 1984, remanding the case to the trial court for reconstitution and retrial, despite a reconstituted record and decision already existing.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case for reconstitution and retrial despite the finality of the related annulment case and the prior reconstitution and dismissal of the petition for relief.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the IAC resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on finality of judgment and the improper use of remand. First, the petition for relief from judgment was correctly dismissed by the trial court as it failed to substantiate the requisite grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Mere failure to perfect a timely appeal is not a valid ground for relief. Second, the IAC’s order for remand was erroneous and constituted an abuse of discretion. A reconstitution and trial had already been conducted, culminating in the July 13, 1983 decision. Remanding a case for the same purpose is dilatory and unnecessary, especially when a final judgment on the merits of the underlying dispute already exists. The Supreme Court’s final decision in G.R. No. 66141, which affirmed the dismissal of the annulment action, effectively settled the issues private respondents sought to relitigate. Consequently, the appeal from the dismissal of the petition for relief was rendered moot and academic. The Court emphasized that remand is a matter of necessity, not discretion, and is impermissible when it would unjustly delay justice after a final adjudication.