View full case

LUISA BRIONES-VASQUEZ v. CA

FACTS:

In this case, a petition for certiorari was filed assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner's motion for clarificatory judgment and motion for reconsideration. An agreement called a pacto de retro sale was entered into by Maria Mendoza Vda. De Ocampo, who acquired a parcel of land from Luisa Briones. The agreement allowed Luisa Briones the right to repurchase the land until December 31, 1970. Maria Mendoza Vda. De Ocampo passed away in 1979, and in 1990, her heirs filed a petition for consolidation of ownership, claiming that the seller failed to exercise her right to redeem the property. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision declaring the agreement as a true pacto de retro sale and allowing the defendant to redeem the property within 30 days from the finality of the judgment. The Court of Appeals later declared the agreement as an equitable mortgage. A writ of execution was issued but was returned unserved, and subsequent motions for an alias writ of execution were also unsuccessful. Eventually, petitioner filed an omnibus motion praying for the discharge of the equitable mortgage and the issuance of a writ of possession. The RTC denied the omnibus motion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in refusing to grant petitioner's motion for clarificatory judgment.

  2. Whether a nunc pro tunc judgment can be issued to correct a judicial error or supply a non-action by the court

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for clarificatory judgment and motion for reconsideration

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent and found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The motion for clarificatory judgment was denied because the decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory. The Court reiterated the general rule that final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable, except for certain exceptions such as clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party, and void judgments. In this case, the petitioner claimed that her motion for clarificatory judgment fell under the exception of nunc pro tunc amendment, but the Court explained that a nunc pro tunc entry is meant to record an act of the court done at a former time, not to render a new judgment or determine new rights. The purpose is to make the record speak the truth and show what the judicial action really was, not to correct errors or supply nonaction by the court. Since the motion for clarificatory judgment sought to modify the final and executory decision, it was correctly denied by the Court of Appeals.

  2. A nunc pro tunc judgment cannot correct a judicial error or supply a non-action by the court. It can only be issued to supply an omission in the record of an action that actually occurred but was inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the judgment sought through the motion for clarificatory judgment, which sought to correct a judicial error, is outside the scope of a nunc pro tunc judgment.

  3. Since the judgment of the Court of Appeals became final and executory, it is no longer susceptible to amendment. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner's motion for clarificatory judgment and motion for reconsideration.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable, except for certain exceptions such as clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party, and void judgments.

  • A nunc pro tunc entry is meant to record an act of the court done at a former time, not to render a new judgment or determine new rights.

  • The purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to make the record speak the truth and show what the judicial action really was, not to correct errors or supply nonaction by the court.

  • A nunc pro tunc judgment can only supply an omission in the record of an action that actually occurred but was inadvertently omitted, and cannot correct a judicial error or supply a non-action by the court.

  • Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is no longer susceptible to amendment.