Chan-Tan v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Susie Chan-Tan and respondent Jesse Tan were married in June 1989 and were blessed with two sons. In 2001, petitioner filed a case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties submitted a compromise agreement concerning their properties and the custody and support of their children, which the trial court approved via a partial judgment on July 31, 2003. On March 30, 2004, the trial court declared the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code, incorporating the compromise agreement into its decision. Procedural History: Subsequently, the trial court issued a resolution on May 17, 2004, granting respondent custody of the children, ordering petitioner to turn over documents and titles, and allowing respondent to stay in the family dwelling. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this resolution, alleging denial of due process due to her counsel's negligence and her fear for her life. The trial court denied this motion for being filed out of time in a resolution dated October 12, 2004. Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss and another motion for reconsideration, claiming she was no longer interested in the suit. The trial court denied these motions on December 28, 2004, holding that the earlier decision and resolution had become final and executory. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration of the December 28, 2004 resolution was denied on February 15, 2005. The trial court then issued a Certificate of Finality. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, questioning the finality of the trial court's decision and resolution, and alleging denial of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court have attained finality despite the alleged denial of due process. Whether Section 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages applies to a motion to dismiss filed by the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The 17 May 2004 Resolution amending the 30 March 2004 Decision and the 15 February 2005 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, in Civil Case No. Q-01-45743 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality of the judgment and denial of due process: The Court held that the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution had become final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. Citing the case of Tuason v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that the alleged negligence of counsel, resulting in the loss of the right to appeal, is not a ground for vacating a valid and regular judgment. The Court found that petitioner was not denied due process, as she actively participated through her counsel, and the records indicated her own disinterest in pursuing the case, leading the trial judge to proceed based on the respondent's evidence. The Court emphasized that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and the issues therein should be laid to rest. On the applicability of Section 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages: The Court agreed with the petitioner that Section 7 of the Rule does not apply to a motion to dismiss filed by the petitioner. The provision clearly states that no motion to dismiss shall be allowed except on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, and any other ground must be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer, which applies only to a respondent. Since the petitioner initiated the case, Section 7 was not applicable to her motion to dismiss. Consequently, her claim that the provision is unconstitutional for obstructing the preservation of the family was rendered moot. The Court clarified that Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which allows dismissal upon motion of the plaintiff, is suppletorily applicable. However, in this instance, the motion to dismiss was filed after the decision had already become final and executory, thus the trial court correctly denied it.
Main Doctrine
A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable, and the alleged negligence of counsel is not a ground for vacating such judgment. Furthermore, a motion to dismiss filed by a petitioner is not governed by Section 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which applies only to respondents.