Chan-Tan vs.

Chan
G.R. no. 167139 (February 25, 2010)
Facts:

 June 1989: Petitioner and respondent got married at the Manila Cathedral.
They had sons Justin (born in Canada in 1990) and Russel (born in the
Philippines in 1993).

 Susie Chan-Tan, petitioner, then filed a case of annulment under FC 36

(psychological incapacity) against Jesse Tan. The parties, thereafter,
submitted a compromise agreement.

 July 31, 2003: trial court issued a partial judgment of approval of the said
compromise agreement.

 March 30, 2004: trial court declared the marriage null and void, under FC 36,
on the ground of psychological incapacity of the parties. TC incorporated the
compromise agreement it previously approved in said decision. Petitioner
then cancelled the offer to purchase the Corinthian Hills Subdivision Lot No.
12, Block 2 property, and authorized Megaworld Corp. to offer it to other
interested buyers. It also appeared that the petitioner left the country with the
children. Respondent then filed an omnibus motion, seeking the main custody
of the children claiming that petitioner brought the kids out of the country w/o
his knowledge; that said petitioner failed to settle the balance for the
Megaworld property, w/c, if forfeited, would prejudice the interest of the
children; and that petitioner failed to turn over to him documents and titles in
his name.

 May 17, 2004: TC awarded respondent custody of the children, ordered

petitioner to turn over to respondent documents and titles in his name, and
allowed respondent to stay in the family dwelling in Mariposa, QC.

 June 28, 2004: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that she
was denied due process, was not able to properly present evidence due to
negligence from her counsel, and said that she was forced out of the country
due to beating she received from the respondent. Petitioner also prayed for
an increase in the respondent's monthly support obligation.

 October 12, 2004: TC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, because

it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. TC also declared
petitioner in contempt of court for non-compliance with the July 31, 2003
partial judgment and the May 17, 2004 resolution. TC also denied the prayer
for an increase in monthly support obligation, since petitioner was able to
enroll the children to another school by herself without respondent's
knowledge.
  November 4, 2004: Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for
reconsideration of the October 12, 2004 resolution, claiming that she was no
longer interested in the suit, claiming that withdrawing from the case would be
in the best interest of her children. She prayed to be vacated her from all prior
orders, and leave the parties at a status quo ante the filing of the suit, or re-
instating the parties to their conditions prior the filings.

 December 28, 2004: TC denied both November 4, 2004 motions, declaring

that the March 30, 2004 and May 17, 2004 decisions had become final and
executory upon lapse of the 15-day reglementary period..

 February 15, 2005: TC again denied another motion for reconsideration of the
December 28, 2004 decision. TC then issued a Certificate of Finality of the
March 30 and May 17, 2004 decisions.
Issue: W/N the March 30, 2004 and May 17, 2004 decisions had become final and
executory despite allegations of denial of due process.
Held: Petition has no merit, on the basis of lapse of the15-day reglementary period.

 Alleged negligence of counsel to inform the petitioner resulting in loss of

petitioner's right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment that is
valid and regular.

 Petitioner cannot claim she was denied due process, since records showed that
she was very active in court. She also cannot claim negligence on the part of her
counsel, since said counsel issued a manifest on May 3, 2004, saying that said
counsel made attempts to call the petitioner, but failed.