[ 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:

When a decision reaches finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and it may
no longer be modified in any way, even if the modification is intended to correct
erroneous factual and legal conclusions, and regardless of whether it is made by the
court that rendered it or the Supreme Court of the land. Any act that violates this
principle must be repealed immediately.

Facts:

A lawsuit was filed, seeking title cancellation, reconveyance, and monetary damages.
Petitioners' Marilyn B. Montehermoso, Tanny B. Montehermoso, Emma B.
Montehermoso Oliveros, Eva B. Montehermoso Carig, and Salvar B. Montehermoso
OCT No. 5781 included respondents Romeo Batuto and Arnel Batuto's 44,410 square
meter (44,410 sq.m.) plot. 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 to overturn the trial
court's decision, including:

Petitioners first challenged the trial court's decision, which was overturned on August
5, 2016 by the Court of Appeals. 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 an independent

petition for relief from judgment, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in
Resolution5 dated September 27, 2017. Petitioner Tanny's motion for reconsideration
was also denied in Resolution6 dated April 24, 2018.

Third, petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court, which denied
it in a Resolution dated August 6, 2018 for failing to demonstrate that the Court of
Appeals committed reversible error justifying the Court's exercise of discretionary
appellate jurisdiction.

However, the petitioners did not stop there. They filed another petition for annulment
of judgment before the Court of Appeals, this time claiming that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in its assailed
Resolution8 dated February 13, 2019. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also
denied in accordance with Resolution9 dated April 10, 2019.
Finally, Petitioners have returned to the Court under Rule 45, challenging the Court of
Appeals' denial of their petition for annulment of judgment.

Petitioners have never stopped attacking the trial court's Decision dated March 8,
2015 before various fora and through various modes of review for over five (5) years.
Despite the fact that the contested decision had long since reached finality on
September 9, 201610 and had already been implemented,11 petitioners have
stubbornly refused to respect the immutability of this judgment, trifling and playing
around with 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:

Every litigation must come to an end, which is a fundamental principle in the legal
system. Access to the courts is ensured. But there has to be a limit. Once a litigant's
rights have been adjudicated in a valid and final judgment of a competent court, he
should not be given free rein to try again. Following suits should not be brought
against the prevailing party. For, if endless litigations are encouraged, unscrupulous
litigants will proliferate, harming the administration of justice.

Petitioners should also stop making a mockery of the judicial system by attempting to
resurrect the trial court's long settled and implemented decision. Any violation of this
injunction will result in appropriate sanctions.