Decision: Court of Appeals
Decision: Court of Appeals
Decision: Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
MANILA
FOURTEENTH DIVISION
- versus - Promulgated:
August 16, 2022
SARAH JANE VALENCIA AND _________________________
ELIZABETH VALERA,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDEZ-AZURA, M.C.V., J.:
The Antecedents
"A tract of land in Annay, Dapiat, Patiao, Peñarrubia, Abra, bounded on the
North by a Provincial Road and Lourdes Botanes; on the East by Domingo
Gadil and Lourdes Botanes; South by Victoria Bataller; and West by the
Provincial Road, Padaoil and Manangan, with an area of 20,000 square
meters and covered by Tax Declaration 9248." 3
The same property was also the subject of litigation in Civil Case No.
1328 instituted by Teresita Tandigan (“Teresita”) against Arnulfo Bilgera
(“Arnulfo”) and Petitioner Josefina Bilgera (“Josefina”), now both deceased,
before the Regional Trial Court Branch 2 in Bangued, Abra and decided on
August 11, 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
3 Ibid., p. 15.
CA-G.R. SP No. 167768 Page 3 of 11
Decision
The RTC rendered a summary judgment4 on the basis that the issue of
ownership had long been settled in Civil Case No. 1328, the only remaining
issue was the Petitioners' refusal to accede to the said decision, as well as the
fact that the said Petitioners had been declared in default. The dispositive
portion of which reads, as follows:
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the defendants are hereby ordered to:
2. Execute and sign all necessary papers and deeds which shall give
validity and effect to said partition;
SO ORDERED.
4 Supra, at note 2.
CA-G.R. SP No. 167768 Page 4 of 11
Decision
A perusal of the records reveals that the Petitioners did not appeal the
aforesaid Decision. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed the instant Petition for
Certiorari5 dated December 29, 2020 and Amended Petition for Certiorari6
dated March 21, 2021.
Assignment of Errors
Petitioners' Arguments
On the other hand, the Respondents insist that (i) the Petitioners'
reliance on Rule 13, Section 9 is misplaced; (ii) they have the right to file the
5 Supra, at note 1.
6 Rollo, pp. 37-48.
CA-G.R. SP No. 167768 Page 5 of 11
Decision
Issue
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
"In this case, petitioners foremost failed to convincingly explain why they
failed to appeal the dismissal order of the trial court. After the dismissal by
the RTC and within the time allowed, it was clear that they were neither
prevented nor legally barred in filing an appeal. Consequently, when they
7 Heirs of Cabrera v. Jurado, G.R. No. 235308. May 12, 2021 citing Miranda v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. 213502, February 18, 2019.
8 Id.
CA-G.R. SP No. 167768 Page 6 of 11
Decision
belatedly filed their petition for certiorari before the CA, petitioners generally
ascribed grave abuse of discretion against the trial court and tried to make it
appear that appeal could not have been speedy and adequate remedy for
them."
Going into the merits, anent the issue of whether there was a violation
of Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, We hold that there was none.
The said provision states:
Petitioners asserted that they were not given any notices regarding the
proceedings, in violation of Rule 9, Section 3a of the Rules of Court.
However, they failed to substantiate such claim. There is no proof, other than
their bare allegation, that they nor their counsel did not receive any notices.
Verily, the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
with respect to service of notice stands.
Petitioners also state in their Petition, "if at all the Notices [were]
forwarded to said Counsel[,] [they] were not effective Notices to Petitioners
as the Lawyer ceased to safeguard the rights of Petitioners]." Such statement
holds no water because of the absence of reckless or gross negligence on the
conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the
modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest
court in the land. The orderly administration of justice requires that, at
the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must
reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write
finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our
justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations.
Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be
maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act,
which violates such principle, must immediately be struck down.
Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not
confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known
as courts, but extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had
been conferred.
The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final
judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc
pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void
judgments."15
The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule
on immutability of final judgments. Hence, the RTC Decision must stand.
However, this Court directs the RTC to conduct further proceedings to
determine with particularity the metes and bounds of the portions of the
property which the respective parties must occupy.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The
Decision by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Bucay, Abra in Civil Case
No. 10-615 promulgated on July 27, 2017 is SUSTAINED. The case is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings to
determine with particularity the metes and bounds of the portions of the
property which the respective parties must occupy.
SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARY CHARLENE V. HERNANDEZ-AZURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Associate Justice
ORIGINAL SIGNED
FLORENCIO M. MAMAUAG, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Chairperson, Fourteenth Division
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: