Jaban v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1979, petitioners Bienvenido and Lydia Jaban obtained a housing loan from the Social Security System (SSS) for P38,300.00, secured by a mortgage. The loan had a 15-year term and was to be paid in monthly amortizations with split interest rates. Petitioners made advance payments, believing they had fully paid the loan by 1987. They requested the release of their mortgage and title, but SSS refused, asserting that petitioners' computation was incorrect and that a balance of P6,006.14 remained as of May 1, 1987. This led to petitioners filing a case against SSS for the release of the mortgage. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 15, in Civil Case No. Ceb-6571, dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of cause of action but ordered them to pay the outstanding balance of P6,367.62 as of December 1987, plus other amounts due per the promissory note, and P10,000.00 in attorney's fees. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision but deleted the award of attorney's fees. Petitioners' subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court (SC) was denied for non-compliance with procedural rules and became final. Petitioners then sought execution of the judgment, claiming full payment based on the modified dispositive portion. The RTC issued orders on March 24, 1995, and July 3, 1995, requiring SSS to clarify the outstanding balance, including mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) and fire insurance. Petitioners argued these orders modified a final and executory judgment. The CA dismissed their special civil action for certiorari, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing their special civil action for certiorari. They contend that the RTC's orders dated March 24, 1995, and July 3, 1995, improperly amended, modified, and altered the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment by requiring payment for fire insurance and MRI, which they claim were not mentioned in the original promissory note or the final judgment. They argue that the CA erred in upholding these orders, which they believe lack legal basis and prevent the release of their mortgage despite satisfaction of the judgment. The core issue is whether the CA committed reversible error in holding that the RTC's questioned orders did not amend, alter, or modify the final and executory judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding that the questioned orders of the RTC did not amend, alter, or modify the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment. Whether the RTC, in ordering petitioners to pay for fire insurance and additional amortization payments with penalties, amended or modified the dispositive portion of the final and executory decision. Whether the RTC erred in not ordering the release of the mortgage when the dispositive portion of the final and executory judgment had allegedly been satisfied.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the RTC orders amended the final and executory judgment: The Court held that the orders of the RTC dated March 24 and July 3, 1995, did not amend, alter, or modify the dispositive portion of the final and executory judgment. Instead, these orders were issued to clarify and quantify the amount still owed by the petitioners to the SSS, in consonance with the Resolution dated November 25, 1994, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 35041. The appellate court's resolution clarified that the computation of the exact amount payable was governed by the rules and regulations on loan payments of the SSS, which was in a better position to make such computation. The trial court, in conducting a hearing and issuing its orders, was merely implementing the mandate of the appellate court to determine the exact amount due, which included mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) and fire insurance, as established under SSS rules. Therefore, the trial court was acting pursuant to the appellate court's resolution to enable its decision to be executed or implemented, and not to alter the judgment itself. On the issue of ordering payment for fire insurance and additional amortization: The Court found that petitioners overlooked the Resolution dated November 25, 1994, of the appellate court, which clarified that the computation of the amount payable was governed by SSS rules and regulations. These rules, as established at the hearing, included MRI and fire insurance as part of the amounts to be paid by housing loan borrowers, apart from amortization and interest. Thus, requiring payment for these items was not an amendment but a clarification in line with the governing rules and the appellate court's directive. The promissory note, while the basis of the loan, did not preclude the inclusion of other legitimate impositions as per SSS policy. On the issue of not ordering the release of the mortgage: The Court reiterated that the release of the mortgage was contingent upon the full payment of the amount due. Since the RTC orders were aimed at determining this exact amount, including MRI and fire insurance as per SSS rules, the mortgage could only be released after such payment. The trial court's actions were consistent with the principle that a judgment is not confined to what appears on its face but also includes those necessarily included or necessary thereto. The determination of the exact amount due, as clarified by the RTC orders, was a prerequisite for the release of the mortgage, thereby enabling the execution of the final judgment.
Main Doctrine
Orders issued by a trial court to clarify and quantify the amount still owed by a debtor, in consonance with a resolution of the appellate court and the rules and regulations of the creditor, do not constitute an amendment, alteration, or modification of a final and executory judgment, but merely serve to enable its execution or implementation.