Cortes v. Valdellon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In a land registration case, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan ordered the land in question to be registered in favor of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. Subsequently, respondents filed a petition for review to set aside the decree and annul the registration. Procedural History: The CFI dismissed the respondents' petition for review on November 22, 1971, finding that the land had already been transferred to innocent purchasers for value. The dismissal order was allegedly sent by registered mail on January 21, 1972, to respondents' counsel. Two years later, on January 8, 1974, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming they never received the dismissal order and only learned of it when they were being ejected. The CFI granted this motion, setting aside the dismissal order. Upon petitioner's motion for reconsideration, he presented evidence of mailing, including an affidavit from the mailing clerk, postal certifications, and a page from the delivery book showing receipt by respondents' counsel's authorized clerk on January 27, 1972. The CFI denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals upheld the CFI's ruling, finding that petitioner failed to prove complete service. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the respondent judge's order which set aside a final dismissal order based on respondents' bare assertion of non-receipt, despite overwhelming evidence of service.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in setting aside a final and unappealable dismissal order two years after its issuance based on respondents' bare denial of receipt. Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner sufficiently proved service of the dismissal order by registered mail on respondents' counsel.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and set aside the respondent judge's order of May 21, 1974. The temporary restraining order issued against the enforcement of said order was made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the dismissal order after two years. The dismissal order had long become final and unappealable, and the respondent judge thus lacked jurisdiction to disturb it. The basis for setting aside the order was the respondents' bare denial of receipt, which could not prevail against substantial evidence proving service. The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final, it is immutable and unalterable. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner presented overwhelming documentary evidence that conclusively showed service of the dismissal order by registered mail on respondents' counsel. This evidence included the affidavit of the lower court's mailing clerk, certifications from postal officials, and a page from the post office's delivery book showing the signature of respondents' counsel's authorized clerk, Tessie Ferrer, acknowledging receipt on January 27, 1972. The Court ruled that these documents constituted primary and direct proof of service, even more so than the registry receipt and return card, which were not found in the record. The Court stated that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by postal officials, coupled with this substantial evidence, outweighed the respondents' bare denial of receipt.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a dismissal order, once it becomes final and unappealable, can no longer be set aside by the lower court. The Court emphasized that proof of service by registered mail, even without the physical registry receipt and return card, can be conclusively established through official certifications from postal authorities and entries in the post office's delivery book, especially when such evidence contradicts a party's bare denial of receipt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by postal officials prevails over unsubstantiated claims of non-receipt.