REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

TANGO (Second Division)

G.R. No. 161062; July 31, 2009 (Decision)
QUISUMBING, J.

FACTS:
On March 9, 1987, Ferventino and Maria were married in civil rites before then Mayor Ignacio
Bunye of Muntinlupa City. None of Maria’s relatives witnessed the ceremony as they were opposed to
her relationship with Ferventino. The two had only spent a night together and had been intimate once
when Maria told Ferventino that she and her family will soon be leaving for the United States of America.
Maria assured Ferventino, however, that she will file a petition so he can live with her in the USA. In the
event that said petition is denied, she promised to return to the Philippines to live with him.
On March 13, 1987, Maria and her family flew to Seattle, USA. Ferventino alleges that Maria
kept in touch for a year before she stopped responding to his letters. Out of resentment, he burned all the
letters Maria wrote him. He claims to have forgotten her address since.
Ferventino inquired to Maria’s uncle, Antonio Ledesma, in Las Piñas about her whereabouts,
however, it turned out that the latter’s relatives had no idea. He also solicited the assistance of a friend in
Texas, Capt. Luis Aris of the U.S. Air Force, but to no avail. Finally, he sought the aid of his parents
Antonio and Eusebia in Los Angeles, and his aunt Anita Castro-Mayor in Seattle. Like, Ledesma though,
their attempts to find Maria proved fruitless.
The next 14 years went by without any news of Maria. On the belief that his wife had died,
Ferventino filed a verified petition dated October 1, 2001 before the Ligao City RTC for the declaration
of presumptive death of Maria within the contemplation of Article 41 of the Family Code. Petition was
granted and Maria was presumed dead.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the Republic, filed a Notice of Appeal. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
ISSUES:
WON Tango had established a basis to form a presumption that his absent spouse is already dead.
RULING:
By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be
immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial
court’s judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse
under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a
petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition
should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be
sure, even if the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and
the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of
choice of court forum.
From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party then file a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors which
the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper
subject of an appeal.
 In the case before us, petitioner committed a serious procedural lapse when it filed a notice of
appeal in the Court of Appeals instead of a petition for certiorari. The RTC equally erred in giving due
course to said appeal and ordering the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. By no
means did the Court of Appeals acquire jurisdiction to review the judgment of the RTC which, by express
provision of law, was immediately final and executory. Adding to the confusion, the Court of Appeals
entertained the appeal and treated the same as an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. As
it were, the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error when it failed to dismiss the erroneous
appeal of the Republic on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because, by express provision of the law, the
judgment was not appealable.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But, even
if petitioner used the correct mode of appeal at this level, the hands of the Court are tied. Without a doubt,
the decision of the trial court had long become final. Deeply ingrained in the jurisprudence is the principle
that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it may no longer
be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or
law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
In light of the foregoing, it would be unnecessary, if not useless, to discuss the issues raised by
petitioner. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy
and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-
judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law. The only exceptions to the
general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. None of the exceptions obtains here to merit
the review sought.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
QUICK DIGEST:
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound
practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial
agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law.