Too late

Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact and of law. This is the principle applied in this case of the spouses Pepe and Celia.

From September 1956 to October 1957, Pepe and Celia (Spouses) obtained various loans from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) totaling P3,117,000. The loan was secured by real estate mortgages (REM) on several parcels of land in Pasig City covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) Nos. 26105, 37177 and 50356 (the mother titles) in the Spouses’ names. Under the first mortgage dated September 25, 1956 consisting of 199 lots covered by the mother title, TCT 26105, 78 lots (subject lots) were expressly excluded.

But when the Spouses defaulted in the payment of their loan, GSIS foreclosed on the lands covered by three mother titles even if they were already subdivided into smaller lots. Being the highest bidder, GSIS was issued a certificate of sale.

On November 25, 1975, GSIS consolidated its title over the lots subject of the foreclosure sale. Subsequently GSIS began disposing the foreclosed lots including the subject 78 lots that were excluded in the first mortgage.

On May 7, 1990, Eddie, the successor in interest of the Spouses who acquired the rights and interest of their sole heir, filed an action for re-conveyance of the excluded lots against the GSIS in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC).

After trial the RTC rendered a decision dated December 17, 1997 ordering the GSIS to re-convey the 78 lots or pay its market value if it cannot be re-conveyed anymore. It also ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the title covering the excluded lots in the name of GSIS or its successors in interest and the notice of lis pendens. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals (CA) and subsequently by the Supreme Court (SC). It became final and executory on February 24, 2004.

In the execution of the decision, the case once more reached the CA when GSIS questioned the RTC order of execution fixing the current fair market value of the subject lots at P35,000 per square meters or a total of P1,166,165,000.00 computed on the basis of an aggregate area of 33,349 square meters. Subsequently the CA partially granted the appeal of GSIS by reducing the amount to be re-conveyed to P399, 828,000.

The case reached the SC once more when GSIS filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition raising the fact that there had already been re-conveyance of the subject lots through various transactions conducted even before the commencement of the case before the RTC. Hence GSIS argued that there has already been partial execution of the decision by prior re-conveyance made Pepe himself to lot buyers. GSIS thus asked the SC to reconsider and reverse the unjust decision of the RTC even if the decision has become final because the non-reopening thereof would result in gross injustice and unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. Was GSIS correct?

No. Nothing is more settled in law than the rule on finality of judgment. The only exception to this rule are the correction of clerical errors or the making of the so called nunc pro tunc (now for then) entries that do not prejudice any party and where the judgment is void. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. This doctrine is grounded on the fundamental consideration of public policy and sound practice, and that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law.

None of the exceptions exist in this case. The modification that would result should the petition of GSIS be granted would not involve mere clerical errors but would entail presentation of alleged newly discovered evidence that should have been raised as affirmative defenses during trial. Moreover the judgment here has been upheld and not declared void by this Court. What the GSIS seeks to do is to nullify a final and executory judgment that has been passed upon by the RTC, the CA and the SC. This cannot be done during the execution stage of the proceedings, not even under threat that it will be a decision against the fate of the GSIS funds that exist for the service of government employees who deserve to be favored in law under the principle of social justice and equity. While GSIS may be in a predicament regarding its actuarial insolvency at this time, justice however requires that both sides of the controversy and the entirety of the case should be looked into. In doing so, the right of private citizens already established should be upheld (GSIS vs. RTC Pasig and Santiago etc, G.R. 175393; GSIS Lavina et. al. G.R. 177731, December 18, 2009)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]