G.R. No. 232728. December 13, 2017

FIRST DIVISION: [G.R. No. 232728, December 13, 2017] HENEDINA "DINA" ANDUEZA, FARRAH FRANCE A. CORBETA AND FROILAN V. ANDUEZA V. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION.

The petitioners' manifestation stating that a motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari was sent through e-mail in compliance with the efficient paper rule is NOTED; the petitioners' first motion for extension of thirty (30) days within which to file the petition and the respondent's motion for leave to file opposition with opposition to the motions for extension of time are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION; the petitioners' second motion for extension often (10) days from August 28, 2017 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for failing to file the motion within the 15-day reglementary period under Sec. 2, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, having been filed out of time on August 30, 2017, due date being August 28, 2017.

The petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for having been filed out of time. As alleged, petitioners received a copy of the Court of Appeals' (CA) July 4, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 143978 which denied their motion for reconsideration, on July 14, 2017. They thus have 15 days therefrom, or until July 29, 2017 within which to file the petition under the Rules. Since the latter date is a Saturday, petitioners filed on the following work day, July 31, 2017, a motion for extension requesting for another 30-day period within which to file the petition. However, they counted the 30 days from July 31, 2017 instead of July 29, 2017, which is the original due date. Verily, the petition mailed on August 30, 2017 was two days late as the extended due date should have been August 28, 2017.

In any event, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the CA Decision dated March 14, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 143978 for petitioners' failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Orders of the Makati RTC declaring RCBC as the rightful owner of the subject property. The January 5, 1989 Order of the Makati RTC in Civil Case No. 10054 has long attained finality. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law. The purpose is to write finis to the dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. The Court shall no longer entertain further attempts to delay the execution of the January 5, 1989 Order, the finality of which it has affirmed in its Decision in G.R. No. 203241, which itself has also already attained finality.

SO ORDERED.

Popular Posts