FACTS:

The case involves a boundary dispute between the owners of Lot 6098-D and Lot 6098-E in Bulacan. Lot 6098-D is owned by Spouses Gutierrez, while Lot 6098-E is owned by Spouses Valiente. Spouses Valiente bought Lot 6098-E from the heirs of Crispin Gutierrez, who previously owned the lot. Spouses Gutierrez claimed ownership of the occupied portion under their title. Spouses Valiente filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession against Spouses Gutierrez before the RTC. Spouses Gutierrez filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied. Instead of filing an answer, Spouses Gutierrez filed a motion for reconsideration. Spouses Valiente filed an opposition and a motion to declare defendants in default. The RTC denied Spouses Gutierrez's motion for reconsideration and declared them in default. Spouses Valiente presented their evidence ex-parte. Spouses Gutierrez filed a motion to set aside the order of default, but the RTC did not act on it. Spouses Valiente filed motions for the RTC to render judgment, but it was only two years later that a geodetic engineer submitted a surveyor's report. The parties agreed to the report but were unable to reach an agreement on the issues of encroachment and payment. Spouses Valiente filed a manifestation stating that no agreement had been reached, and the RTC ordered the parties to submit their joint commitments on the issues.

The parties in this case failed to reach an agreement on certain issues, prompting Engr. Atienzo to declare in open court that certain portions of Lot 6098-E were encroached by the defendants. Based on this declaration, the RTC issued an Order on June 23, 2003, approving the Surveyor's Report and directing the defendants to reconvey the encroached portions to the plaintiffs. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Execution, which was granted by the RTC on February 5, 2004. The defendants, however, filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution and to Stay Notice of May 25, 2004, claiming that the orders exceeded the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. The RTC denied the motion, stating that the previous orders had achieved finality and were related to the reliefs sought in the complaint. The defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was also denied by the RTC.

The defendants then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC orders. The CA dismissed the petition due to defective verification, failure to attach required documents, and insufficient payment of docket fees. The defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, submitting an amended verification, copies of the required documents, and additional docket fees. The CA denied the motion, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with procedural rules. The defendants now raise these issues before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the submission and/or amendment of the verification and certification, as well as the submission of alleged material portions of the record, and the full payment of the appellate docket fee.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's departure from the usual judicial procedure when it awarded reliefs in the judgment of default not prayed for in the complaint, and in issuing a writ of execution of a conditional judgment/order.

3. Whether the liberal application of the rule on payment of docket fees applies in this case.

4. Whether the May 15, 2000 Order is final or interlocutory.

5. Whether the June 23, 2003 Order exceeds the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

6. Whether the issues regarding the validity of the June 23, 2003 Order can be raised in a motion to quash execution.

7. Whether or not the losing party, after the order for reconveyance has become final and executory, can still challenge the validity of the said order through a motion to quash or a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

RULING:

1. On the issue of verification and certification, the Court held that while non-compliance with the requirement is not fatal, it is necessary to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct. In this case, the Court found that there was no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification since an amended verification was submitted with the Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Court favored the spouses Gutierrez on this procedural aspect.

2. With regard to the failure to attach material portions of the record, the Court held that only relevant and pertinent documents need to be attached to a petition for certiorari. In this case, the appellate court dismissed the petition for failure to attach irrelevant documents. The Court noted that the required Orders were already attached in the petition and that the alleged deficiency was corrected by submitting the necessary documents in the Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Court favored the spouses Gutierrez on this procedural aspect as well.

3. Regarding the shortage of payment of the docketing fee, the Court held that it cannot be used as a ground for dismissing the petition. The Court cited a previous case stating that strict regulations on docket fees do not apply when the party did not deliberately intend to defraud the court. Consequently, the Court favored the spouses Gutierrez on this issue.

4. The liberal application of the rule on payment of docket fees applies in this case. The deficiency in payment of docket fees was not intentional, as Spouses Gutierrez were willing to comply with the rules by paying the additional docket fees when required by the court. Therefore, the Sun Insurance doctrine, which allows a liberal application of the rule, applies.

5. The May 15, 2000 Order is interlocutory in nature. It merely directed the conduct of a survey to determine the metes and bounds of the parties' respective lots and did not finally dispose of the case. The order awaited the submission of the Surveyor's Report for the final adjudication of the boundary dispute.

6. The June 23, 2003 Order does not exceed the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. While the complaint did not specifically pray for reconveyance, the general prayer for "other reliefs and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises" includes the grant of reconveyance based on the allegations and evidence presented.

7. The issues regarding the validity of the June 23, 2003 Order cannot be raised in a motion to quash execution. A motion to quash execution is only proper on specific grounds, none of which apply in this case. Spouses Gutierrez should have addressed these issues in a motion for reconsideration or appeal. Since no such motion was filed within the reglementary period, the order for reconveyance had become final and executory.

8. No, the losing party cannot challenge the validity of the order for reconveyance through a motion to quash or a petition for certiorari and prohibition once it has become final and executory. The court emphasized that a judgment or order that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, except for clerical errors or mistakes. Once a judgment or order becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. The court also emphasized that every litigation must come to an end and that there must be a limit to access to the courts. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. Thus, the court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition for lack of merit.

PRINCIPLES:

• Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. Non-compliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective as long as there is no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification.

• Only relevant and pertinent documents need to be attached to a petition for certiorari. Failure to attach irrelevant documents may be rectified by subsequent submission of the required documents.

• Shortage of payment of docket fees cannot be used as a ground for dismissing a petition if there was no deliberate intention to defraud the court.

• The liberal application of rules and technicalities in order to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of their cause.

• Technicality and procedural imperfection should not serve as a basis for decisions if it may result in injustice.

• An interlocutory order refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.

• A general prayer in a complaint for "other reliefs and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable" is broad enough to justify the grant of remedies not specifically prayed for.

• A motion to quash execution is only proper on specific grounds, such as a variation of the judgment, a change in the situation of the parties, or execution sought against exempt property.

• A judgment or order that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable, except for clerical errors or mistakes.

• Once a judgment or order becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest.

• Litigants should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try after their rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court.

• Access to the courts is guaranteed, but there must be a limit thereto.

• Every litigation must come to an end.

• The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits.