Scribd
Upload
16 views2 pages

Montehermoso Vs Batuto Version 4

Uploaded by

roberto valenzuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views2 pages

Montehermoso Vs Batuto Version 4

Uploaded by

roberto valenzuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[ G.R. No.

246553, December 02, 2020 ]

MARILYN B. MONTEHERMOSO, TANNY B. MONTEHERMOSO, EMMA B.


MONTEHERMOSO OLIVEROS, EVA B. MONTEHERMOSO, TERESA B.
MONTEHERMOSO CARIG, AND SALVAR B. MONTEHERMOSO, PETITIONERS, VS.
ROMEO BATUTO AND ARNEL BATUTO, RESPONDENTS.

RESOLUTION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

Doctrine:

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no
longer be modified in any way, even if the modification is intended to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it is made by the court that rendered it or by
the Highest Court of the land. Any act that violates this principle must be repealed
immediately.

Facts:

The case arose from a complaint seeking title cancellation, reconveyance, and
damages. Respondents Romeo Batuto and Arnel Batuto claimed that their property, a
44,410 square meter (44,410 sq.m.) plot of land, was incorrectly included in
petitioners' Marilyn B. Montehermoso, Tanny B. Montehermoso, Emma B.
Montehermoso Oliveros, Eva B. Montehermoso Carig, and Salvar B. Montehermoso
OCT No. 5781. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found merit in the respondents' claim
and ordered the property to be reconveyed to them in Decision2 dated March 8, 2015.
Petitioners then filed a slew of court actions, all aimed at overturning the trial court's
decision, including:

Petitioners first appealed the trial court's decision, which was dismissed by the Court
of Appeals in a resolution dated August 5, 2016. On September 9, 2016,3 it became
final and executory, and the corresponding writs of execution and demolition4 were
issued.

Second, about a year later, Petitioner Tanny Montehermoso filed a petition for relief
from judgment on his own, which the Court of Appeals dismissed under Resolution5
dated September 27, 2017. Resolution6 dated April 24, 2018 also denied Petitioner
Tanny's motion for reconsideration.

Third, Then petitioners sought to reverse the foregoing Resolutions via a petition for
review on certiorari filed with the Court which denied the same under Resolution
dated August 6, 2018 for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed
reversible error which warranted the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate
jurisdiction.7

Fourth, But petitioners did not stop there. They again filed, this time, a petition for
annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, raising as ground the trial court's
alleged lack of jurisdiction over the case. In its assailed Resolution8 dated February
13, 2019, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied under Resolution9 dated April 10, 2019.

Finally, Petitioners, once again, are back before the Court via Rule 45, assailing the
Court of Appeals' denial of their petition for annulment of judgment. ℒαwρhi ৷

Invariably, petitioners, for over five (5) years since the trial court rendered its Decision
dated March 8, 2015, have never stopped attacking it before different fora and through
different modes of review. This notwithstanding that the assailed decision had long
attained finality on September 9, 201610 and had already been implemented.11 As it
was, petitioners have stubbornly refused to respect the immutability of this judgment
as they keep trifling and playing around the judicial process over and over again

Issue:

Whether petitioners have stubbornly refused to respect the immutability of this


judgment as they keep trifling and playing around the judicial process over and over
again

Held:

It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation


must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit
thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid and final judgment of
a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for
another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if
endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply to
the detriment of the administration of justice.

Petitioners, too, should now stop making a mockery of the judicial system through
their pernicious attempts to revive the trial court's long settled and implemented
decision. A violation of this injunction will be sanctioned accordingly.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

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:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy