14.

CHUA
NUNAL VS CA
AMENDMENT OF JUDGEMENT
MP: Settled in the law than that when a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby
becomes 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 land. The only
recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called
nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the
judgment is void." Furthermore, "Any amendment or alteration which substantially
affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including
the entire proceedings held for that purpose.

FACTS: This case originated from a suit docketed as Civil Case No. 872 filed by Emma
Lyon de Leon in her behalf and as guardian ad litem of the 7 minors against Luisa Lyon
Nuñal, now deceased and herein represented by her heirs for partition and accounting
of a parcel of land located in Isabela, Basilan City. Private respondents claimed that
said parcel of land, formerly covered by TCT No. 3141 in the name of Frank C. Lyon,
has been in possession of petitioner Luisa Lyon Nuñal since 1946 and that she made
no accounting of the income derived therefrom, despite demands made by private
respondents for the partition and delivery of their shares.
On Dec 17, 1974, after trial and hearing, the then CFI now RTC rendered its
judgment in favor of private respondents and ordered the partition of the property but
dismissing private respondents' complaint for accounting.
On July 17, 1984, Mary Lyon Martin, daughter of the late Frank C. Lyon and
Mary Ekstrom Lyon, assisted by her counsel filed a motion to quash the order of
execution with preliminary injunction. In her motion, she contends that not being a party
to the above-entitled case her rights, interests, ownership and participation over the
land should not be affected by a judgment in the said case; that the order of execution is
unenforceable insofar as her share, right, ownership and participation is concerned,
said share not having been brought within the Jurisdiction of the court a quo.
On January 9, 1987, the lower court issued the assailed order directing the
inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin as co-owner with a share in the partition of the property.

ISSUE: whether or not the RTC may order the inclusion of Mary L. Martin as co-heir
entitled to participate in the partition of the property considering that she was neither a
party plaintiff nor a party defendant in Civil Case No. 872 for partition and accounting of
the aforesaid property and that the decision rendered in said case has long become
final and executory.

RULING: NO, In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 872 has
become final and executory. Thus, upon its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction
over the case. Consequently, any modification that he would make, as in this case, the
inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin would be in excess of his authority. The remedy of Mary
Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in Civil Case No. 872 and
all other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in interest
can prove their respective claims.