G.R. No. 256233 - People vs. Nixon Cabanilla, et al.

An agreement known as a pacto de retro sale was executed between Luisa Briones-Vasquez (seller/petitioner) and Maria Mendoza Vda. de Ocampo.
Under the agreement, Luisa Briones reserved the right to repurchase the parcel of land up to December 31, 1970.
Maria Mendoza Vda. de Ocampo passed away on May 27, 1979.

On June 14, 1990, Hipolita Ocampo Paulite and Eusebio Mendoza Ocampo, heirs of Maria Mendoza, filed a petition for consolidation of ownership, arguing that Luisa Briones did not exercise her reserved right within the prescribed period.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32 rendered a decision on January 30, 1992, declaring:

The contract was a true pacto de retro sale.
The defendant (Luisa Briones) still had a 30-day period post-judgment finality to redeem the property, subject to Article 1616 of the New Civil Code.
No costs were imposed.

The private respondents (heirs) appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals.
On June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and declared that the 1970 sale with right of repurchase was in fact an equitable mortgage.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied through a resolution on December 15, 1995.
The decision by the Court of Appeals became final and executory with the entry of judgment on July 17, 1996.

Both petitioner and respondents filed motions for a writ of execution at the RTC.
The RTC initially issued a writ of execution; however, the writ was returned unserved because:

Respondents were informed of the issuance and the fees required.
One of the respondents refused to implement the writ by not depositing the necessary fees, and the 60-day implementation period lapsed.

Petitioner then filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, which was granted by the RTC on July 10, 1997.
Despite service of the alias writ, respondents again refused to comply by not claiming the deposited amount, as they were already informed that withdrawal would cause cancellation of the mortgage.

Unable to execute the Court of Appeals’ decision, petitioner filed an omnibus motion on May 25, 1999, seeking:

Discharge of the equitable mortgage (Exhibit aAa).
Issuance of a writ of possession for the delivery of the property to the defendant.

The RTC denied the omnibus motion on November 16, 1999, holding that the finality and executory nature of the Court of Appeals decision prevented any modification.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC order on February 23, 2000, which was likewise denied.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a motion for clarificatory judgment on April 5, 2000. The CA denied this motion in a resolution dated June 9, 2000, stating that no clarification was warranted.
A motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution was filed and similarly denied on August 3, 2000.
Finally, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction in denying her motions for clarificatory judgment and reconsideration.

Whether the Court of Appeals acted arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion—amounting to a lack of jurisdiction—when it denied petitioner’s motion for clarificatory judgment and her subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Whether a nunc pro tunc amendment, as sought by petitioner through the motion for clarificatory judgment, is permissible to correct or supplement a final and executory decision.
Whether the characterization of the 1970 sale with right of repurchase as an equitable mortgage, rather than a simple sale with repurchase right, negates petitioner’s claim to repurchase and confirms the application of mortgage law.