Assigned Case Digest submitted by

CHRISTOPHER G. HALNIN

Assignment No. 11 Item no. 14

NUAL vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 94005
April 6, 1993
FACTS:
Sometime in December 1974, after trial and hearing, the then Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial court) rendered its judgment in favor of private respondents and ordered the
partition of the property of the late Frank C. Lyon and Mary Ekstrom Lyon. The order of
partition was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in July 1982 then remanded to the lower
court and two years later, a writ of execution was issued by the latter.

On July 17, 1984, Mary Lyon Martin, daughter of the late Frank C. Lyon and Mary Ekstrom
Lyon, assisted by her counsel filed a motion to quash the order of execution with preliminary
injunction. In her motion, she contends that not being a party to the above-entitled case her
rights, interests, ownership and participation over the land should not be affected by a judgment
in the said case; that the order of execution is unenforceable insofar as her share, right,
ownership and participation is concerned, said share not having been brought within the
Jurisdiction of the court a quo. She further invokes Section 12, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.

On January 1987, the lower court issued the assailed order directing the inclusion of Mary Lyon
Martin as co-owner with a share in the partition of the property

The petitioner filed an appeal before the CA assailing the decision of the lower court whether or
not the trial court may order the inclusion of Mary L. Martin as co-heir entitled to participate in
the partition of the property considering that she was neither a party plaintiff nor a party
defendant in Civil Case No. 872 for partition and accounting of the aforesaid property and that
the decision rendered in said case has long become final and executory.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the proper remedy to enforce a right of an excluded heir to a final and executory
judgment of partition is a motion to quash said judgment?

HELD:
The Court held in the negative. The Court said that when a final judgment becomes executory, it
thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous
conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by
the Court rendering it or by the highest Court of land. The only recognized exceptions are the
correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void."

Furthermore, "any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory
judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that
purpose."

In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 872 has become final and
executory. Thus, upon its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction over the case. Consequently,
any modification that he would make, as in this case, the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin would
be in excess of his authority.

The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in Civil Case
No. 872 and all other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in
interest can prove their respective claims.