SUSIE CHAN-TAN, PETITIONER, VS. JESSE C.

TAN, 15-day reglementary period without any timely appeal

RESPONDENT. having been filed by either party.

Facts: Issue:

 Petitioner and respondent were married in June of Petitioner raises the question of whether the 30 March 2004
1989 at Manila Cathedral in Intramuros, Manila. They decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court
were blessed with two sons. have attained finality despite the alleged denial of due
 In 2001, twelve years into the marriage, petitioner filed process.
a case for the annulment of the marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code. The parties submitted to the Held:
court a compromise agreement.
 On 31 July 2003, the trial court issued a partial In the present case, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17
judgment approving the compromise agreement. May 2004 resolution of the trial court had become final and
 On 30 March 2004, the trial court rendered a decision executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to
declaring the marriage void. The trial court appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the 17
incorporated in its decision the compromise agreement May 2004 resolution, which the trial court received on 28
of the parties on the issues of support, custody, June 2004, was clearly filed out of time. Applying the
visitation of the children, and property relations. doctrine laid down in Tuason, the alleged negligence of
 Meanwhile, petitioner cancelled the offer to purchase counsel resulting in petitioner's loss of the right to appeal is
the Corinthian Hills Subdivision. It also appears from not a ground for vacating the trial court's judgments.
the records that petitioner left the country bringing the
children with her When petitioner filed the motion to dismiss on 4 November
 Respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking in the 2004, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004
main custody of the children due to the facts that the resolution of the trial court had long become final and
Petitioner violates the Compromise Agreement. executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period
 the trial court, in its 17 May 2004 resolution, without any timely appeal having been filed by either party.
awarded to respondent custody of the children, The 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004
ordered petitioner to turn over to respondent resolution may no longer be disturbed on account of the
documents and titles in the latter's name, and belated motion to dismiss filed by petitioner. The trial court
allowed respondent to stay in the family dwelling was correct in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.
in Mariposa, Quezon City. Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment
 Petitioner filed on 28 June 2004 a motion for becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and
reconsideration alleging denial of due process on unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any
account of accident, mistake, or excusable respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
negligence. She alleged she was not able to perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. The
present evidence because of the negligence of her reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of
counsel and her own fear for her life and the future public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of
of the children. She claimed she was forced to occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be
leave the country, together with her children, due final at some definite date fixed by law. Once a judgment
to the alleged beating she received from has become final and executory, the issues there should be
respondent and the pernicious effects of the laid to rest.
latter's supposed gambling and womanizing ways.
She prayed for an increase in respondent's
monthly support obligation in the amount of
P150,000.
- petitioner's motion for reconsideration,
which was filed beyond the 15-day
reglementary period.
 On 4 November 2004, petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss and a motion for reconsideration of the
October 2004 Resolution. She claimed she was no
longer interested in the suit. Petitioner stated that the
circumstances in her life had led her to the conclusion
that withdrawing the petition was for the best interest
of the children. She prayed that an order be issued
vacating all prior orders and leaving the parties at
the status quo ante the filing of the suit.
 In its 28 December 2004 Resolution, the trial court
denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner. It held that the 30
March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution
had become final and executory upon the lapse of the