PVB v. Valenzuela (G.R. No. 163530; March 9, 2011)


CASE DIGEST: PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. RAMON VALENZUELA, Respondent.

FACTS: Veterans Bank granted a loan to Cafe Valenzuela, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) executed by Enrico Valenzuela in representation of Cafe Valenzuela. The property mortgaged was sold in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale with the Bank as the highest bidder when Cafe Valenzuela failed to pay its loan. The Bank registered its certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds in Malolos, Bulacan. However, an error was reflected in the entry of the title, which was sought to be corrected by the Bank. It thus filed a petition to correct an entry in a transfer certificate of title.

Herein respondent then filed an Opposition with Motion to Dismiss claiming among others, that: he is one of the legitimate children of the spouses Maximo and Honorata Valenzuela, who are the registered owners of the subject property; the alleged certificate of sale involving the subject parcel of land was never duly registered or annotated as a memorandum on the title, and; a civil case was filed by respondent against petitioner for annulment of title wherein one of the issues involved is the non-registration of the abovementioned certificate of sale.

The RTC granted the petition for correction, but reversed upon reconsideration. The RTC based its Order in a Resolution Issued by the CA dated November 14, 2002, wherein the appellate court made a finding that the Certificate of Sale involving the mortgaged property was never registered with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. The RTC held that since the subject certificate of sale was not registered, there is nothing to correct, alter or amend.

ISSUE:

Did the RTC err in relying on the Resolution of the CA in dismissing petitioner's petition for correction of entry?
HELD: Settled is the rule that a judgment that has become final and executory is 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 the land. While there are recognized exceptions e.g.,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 rendering its execution unjust and inequitable none of these exceptions apply to the present case.

There is no dispute that the November 14, 2002 Resolution of the CA, which is being questioned by petitioner, had already become final and executory. The petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner assailing the said CA Resolution had been denied with finality as this Court found no compelling reason to grant the said petition. Consequently, an entry of judgment was already issued by this Court on September 1, 2003. The determination of the questions of fact and of law by the CA already attained finality, and may not now be disputed or litigated by a reopening of the same questions in a subsequent litigation between the same parties and their privies over the same subject matter.

***

In any case, petitioner is seeking relief under the provisions of Section 108 of PD No. 1529. While the provision, among other things, authorizes a person in interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title or of any memorandum appearing therein, the prevailing rule is that proceedings thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.Relief under the said legal provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest.

In the present case, there is no question that there is a serious objection and an adverse claim on the part of an interested party as shown by respondent's opposition and motion to dismiss the petition for correction of entry filed by petitioner. The absence of unanimity among the parties is also evidenced by respondent's action for damages and annulment of petitioner's title over the subject parcel of land. Thus, petitioner may not avail of the remedy provided for under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.

DENIED