The Supreme Court, in RE: ADOPTION OF KAREN HERICO LICERIO, ruled that the principle of immutability of judgment is not absolute and can be set aside when circumstances arising after the final judgment render its execution unjust or impossible. This means that even if a court decision has become final, it can be modified to align with justice and the current facts, especially concerning adoption cases. This ensures fairness and protects the best interests of the child by allowing courts to address unforeseen issues that prevent the original judgment from being properly enforced. For families, this ruling offers a legal pathway to correct errors or address new information that surfaces after an adoption decree, preventing potential legal impasses and ensuring the adopted child’s rights are fully realized.

When Two Birth Records Clash: Can Courts Correct Final Adoption Orders?

Joel and Carmen Borromeo sought to adopt Karen, Carmen’s illegitimate daughter. The RTC of Marikina granted the adoption, instructing the Quezon City OCR to amend Karen’s birth certificate. However, the Borromeos later discovered that Karen’s birth was registered in both Quezon City and Caloocan City. When the Quezon City OCR couldn’t execute the order, the Borromeos asked the court to modify its decision to include the Caloocan City OCR. The RTC denied this motion, citing the principle of immutability of judgment. This case thus presents a conflict between the finality of court decisions and the need for justice when new facts emerge that impede the implementation of said decision.

The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a final judgment can be modified to accommodate new circumstances that render its execution unjust or impossible. The court acknowledged the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which generally prohibits modifying final decisions, even if the modification aims to correct errors. As the Court stated in Antonio Mendoza v. Fil-Homes realty Development Corporation:

“Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.”

However, the Court also recognized exceptions to this rule. These exceptions include the correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries that do not prejudice any party, void judgments, and circumstances that transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. The Court, citing City of Butuan v. Ortiz, emphasized that:

“When after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final, facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask the court to modify or alter the judgment to harmonize the same with justice and the facts.”

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the fourth exception applied. The discovery of Karen’s dual birth registration, coupled with the RTC of Caloocan City’s refusal to cancel the Caloocan registration, constituted new facts that made the execution of the adoption decree impossible. The RTC of Marikina’s original order directed only the Quezon City OCR to amend the birth certificate. With the birth also registered in Caloocan, the order could not be fully implemented. This situation created an impasse that required judicial intervention.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural rules should not frustrate substantial justice. The Court noted that requiring the petitioners to file a new and separate action would be unduly burdensome and would delay the resolution of the matter. This aligns with the principle that rules of procedure are designed to facilitate, not impede, the attainment of justice. As the Court stated in Barnes v. Judge Padilla:

“Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared to be final.”

The Supreme Court clarified that the RTC of Marikina could not simply amend the dispositive portion of its decision to include the Caloocan City OCR. Instead, the Court directed the RTC to receive evidence regarding the duplicitous registration of Karen’s birth. This would enable the RTC to determine the proper OCR to enforce the adoption decree and, if necessary, correct the decision accordingly. The Court referenced Candelario, et al. v. Canizares, et al., stating:

“After a judgment has become final, if there is evidence of an event or circumstance which would affect or change the rights of the parties thereto, the court should be allowed to admit evidence of such new facts and circumstances, and thereafter suspend execution thereof and grant relief as the new facts and circumstances warrant.”

This ruling underscores the importance of balancing the principle of finality of judgment with the need to ensure just and equitable outcomes, particularly in cases involving the welfare of children. The decision allows courts to address unforeseen circumstances that arise after a judgment has become final, preventing technicalities from undermining the interests of justice. By directing the RTC to receive evidence and determine the proper OCR to enforce the adoption decree, the Supreme Court provided a practical solution to the impasse faced by the petitioners, ensuring that the adoption of Karen could be fully implemented.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the RTC of Marikina City erred in dismissing the petitioners’ motion to correct the decision because of the doctrine of immutability of judgment, despite new facts making its execution impossible.
What is the doctrine of immutability of judgment?	The doctrine of immutability of judgment states that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.
What are the exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment?	The exceptions include (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) nunc pro tunc entries, (3) void judgments, and (4) circumstances transpiring after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
Why did the Supreme Court allow the modification of the RTC decision in this case?	The Supreme Court allowed the modification because the discovery of the duplicitous registration of Karen’s birth constituted a new fact that made the execution of the original adoption decree impossible, falling under the exception of circumstances rendering execution unjust.
What did the RTC of Marikina City originally order?	The RTC of Marikina City originally ordered the City Civil Registrar of Quezon City to rectify and annotate the decree of adoption on Karen’s original certificate of birth.
Why couldn’t the original order be executed?	The original order couldn’t be executed because Karen’s birth was also registered in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Caloocan City, which was not covered by the Marikina RTC’s order.
What was the role of the RTC of Caloocan City in this case?	The RTC of Caloocan City ordered the correction of entries in Karen’s birth certificate instead of canceling the registration, which further complicated the execution of the adoption decree.
What was the Supreme Court’s directive to the RTC of Marikina City?	The Supreme Court directed the RTC of Marikina City to receive evidence relevant to the duplicitous registration, determine the proper OCR to enforce the adoption decree, and correct the decision only as to the proper OCR to enforce it.
What is the practical implication of this Supreme Court decision?	The practical implication is that courts can modify final judgments in adoption cases when new circumstances arise that make the original judgment impossible or unjust to execute, ensuring the best interests of the child.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of balancing the principle of finality of judgment with the need for justice and equity. By recognizing an exception to the doctrine of immutability of judgment, the Court ensured that unforeseen circumstances do not prevent the proper execution of court orders, particularly in sensitive cases such as adoption. This ruling provides a pathway for correcting errors and addressing new information that surfaces after an adoption decree, safeguarding the rights and welfare of adopted children.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: ADOPTION OF KAREN HERICO LICERIO, G.R. No. 208005, November 21, 2018