524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 47027. January 27, 1989.

BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES,

petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
PILAR IBAÑEZ VDA. DE ZUZUARREGUI,
Administratrix, ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR.,
ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREQUI and PACITA JAVIER,
respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Finality of

Judgments; Clerical errors or omissions caused by negligence or
inadvertence may be corrected or supplied even after judgment has
been entered.—lt is well settled that even if a decision has become
final, clerical errors or mistakes or omissions plainly due to
inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied even after
the judgment has been entered. The correction of a clerical error is
an exception to the general rule that no amendment or correction
may be made by the court in its judgment once the latter had
become final. The court may make this amendment ex parte and, for
this purpose, it may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties, the
court’s findings of facts and its conclusions of law as expressed in
the body of the decision.
Same; Special Proceedings; Settlement of Estates; A special
proceeding for the settlement of estate is intended to settle the entire
estate of the deceased.—That a special proceedings for the settlement
of an estate is filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the
deceased is obvious and elementary. It would be absurd for the
heirs to intentionally exclude or leave a parcel of land or a portion
thereof undistributed or undivided because the proceeding is
precisely designed to end the community of interests in properties
held by copartners pro indiviso without designation or segregation
of shares.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

of Appeals, Reyes, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Basilio H. Toquero for petitioner.
Senen S. Ceniza for respondents.

____________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

525

VOL. 169, JANUARY 27, 1989 525

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

REGALADO, J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari, We are asked to set

aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated
1
on
September 19, 1977 in CA-G.R. No. 53197-R which affirmed
the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV,
Quezon City dated March 26, 1973, issued in Special
Proceedings Q-325, entitled2 “Intestate Estate of Don
Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Sr.".
Respondent administratrix, Pilar Ibañez Vda. de
Zuzuarregui, is the surviving spouse of Antonio de
Zuzuarregui, Sr., while petitioner Beatriz de Zuzuarregui
Vda. de Reyes and the other heirs of said estate, namely,
Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., Enrique de Zuzuarregui and
Jose de Zuzuarregui, are the illegitimate children of the
decedent. The parties herein are the only heirs of the
deceased whose estate was the subject of said settlement
proceedings. Petitioner was the daughter of the deceased by
a mother different from that of his aforesaid three (3) sons,
their mother being Pacita Javier 3 who was the niece of the
herein respondent administratrix.
According to the project of partition dated June 17, 1958
and approved by the probate court, the respective shares of
said heirs in the real estate left by the deceased are as
follows: Pilar Ibañez Vda. de Zuzuarrequi, 12/16 thereof,
inclusive of 1/2 of said assets which pertains to her share in
the conjugal partnership; Beatriz,
4
1/16; Antonio, Jr., 1/16;
Enrique, 1/16; and Jose, 1/16.
Among the real properties in the project of partition is a
parcel of land covered by and described in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 42643 located in Antipolo, Rizal. In
said project of partition, its area is stated as 83,781 square
meters, with an assessed value of P6,430.00. This statement
of said area was

______________

1 Special Fifth Division; Justice Luis B. Reyes, ponente, and Justices

Jose C. Bautista and Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., concurring. Rollo, 27–37.
2 Judge Jose C. Campos, presiding, Record on Appeal, 33–35.
3 Petition, Annex C, 7; Rollo, 33 65.
4 Ibid., ibid., 30–31.

526

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
5
repeated in said document four time, that is, in
adjudicating the corresponding portions of said land to Pilar6
(12/15), Antonio, Jr. (1/15). Enrique (1/15) and Jose (1/15).
The petitioner did not have a share in the aforesaid parcel of
land because she relinquished her right thereto “in lieu7 of
her bigger share in Antipolo, Rizal, real estate property."
On January 29, 1973, the respondent administratrix and
the other three distributees filed a motion to reopen Special
Proceedings No. Q-325 for the purpose of correcting an
alleged typographical error in the description of the parcel
of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42643
since, according to them, the correct land area8is 803,781.51
square meters and not 83,781 square meters. The heirs of
Beatriz de Zuzuarregui
9
Vda. de Reyes filed their opposition
to said motion.
The court a quo issued the contested order, with the
following dispositive portion:

“WHEREFORE,

(1) Sp. Proceeding No. Q-325 entitled, The Intestate Estate of

Don Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Sr. is ordered opened for the
purpose of correcting a clerical error in the description of the
parcel of land covered by T.C.T. No. 42643;
(2) The area of land covered by T.C.T. No. 42643 be corrected
by cancelling 83,781 sq. meters and changing it to
803,781.51 sq. meters to conform with the description of
 land area in T.C.T. No. 42643;
(3) That said corrections be made as pages 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12 of
10
the project of Partition."

As already stated, the affirmance of said order by the Court

of Appeals eventuated in the elevation of the controversy to
Us under the present recourse.

____________

5 In Item 14 on p. 6, item 15 on p. 9, item 11 on p. 10 and item 11 on p.

12, Record on Appeal, 5–7.
6 Ibid., ibid., 31–33.
7 Record on Appeal, 24–25.
8 Ibid., 4–9.
9 Ibid., 11–17.
10 Ibid., 34–35.

527

VOL. 169, JANUARY 27, 1989 527

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

It is well settled that even if a decision has become final,

clerical errors or mistakes or omission plainly due to
inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied
even after the judgment has been entered. The correction of
a clerical error is an exception to the general rule that no
amendment or correction may be made by11 the court in its
judgment once the latter had become final. The court may
make this amendment ex parte and, for this purpose, it may
resort to the pleadings filed by the parties, the court’s
findings of facts and its12 conclusions of law as expressed in
the body of the decision.
However, according to the petitioner, there was no such
clerical error. While it is not disputed that the area covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42643 is 803,781.15
square meters, the petitioner insists that “the area intended
by the heirs of Don Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Sr., in the
Project of Partition as approved by the trial13
court is the area
of 83,781 sq. m. and not 803,781.51 sq. m."
She claims that she would not have relinquished her
share in said parcel of land if the true area was not
fraudulently concealed 14from her at the time the project of
partition was executed. She further contends that the fact
that the description of the area as 83,781 square meters was
repeated several times is sufficient evidence to show 15
that
such was the area intended in the project of partition.
Such contentions are without merit. There is, therefore,
no reason to disturb, much less to reverse, the factual
finding of the lower court that a typographical or clerical
error was clearly committed by inadvertence in the project
of partition.

_______________

11 Ang Lin Chi vs. Castelo, et al., 83 Phil. 263 (1949); Presbitero vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., 129 SCRA 443 (1984); Rebuldela, et al. vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 155 SCRA 520 (1987).
12 Filipino Legion Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 56 SCRA 674
(1974); Presbitero vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra; Republic Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc., et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 152
SCRA 309 (1987).
13 Rollo, 22.
14 Ibid., 21, 70.
15 Brief for Appellant, 21–22.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

That a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is

filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the deceased
is obvious and elementary. It would be absurd for the heirs
to intentionally excluded or leave a parcel of land or a
portion thereof undistributed or undivided because the
proceeding is precisely designed to end the community of
interests in properties held by copartners pro indiviso
without designation or segregation of shares.
It is readily apparent from the project of partition that it
was meant to be, as in fact it is, a full and complete
adjudication and partition of all properties of the estate,
necessarily including the entire area of the land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42643. Thus as perceptively
posed by the queries of the respondents, if the intention of
the heirs was to make only a partial adjudication and
distribution of the subject parcel of land, why is it that they
did not make any further disposition of the remaining
balance of 720,000 square meters? What sound reason
would the heirs have in holding in suspense 16
the distribution
of the difference of 720,000 square meters?
Besides, petitioner suggests that she and the male heirs
could not17
see eye to eye because they did not have a common
mother. If so, this supposed antagonism would even be a
compelling reason for the parties to insist on the total
partition of all the properties in the first instance, rather
than for them to remain as co-owners for a long time. As
hereinbefore18
indicated, the project of partition is dated June
17, 1958, while the motion to re-open the proceedings was
filed only on January 29, 1973.
If We were to indulge petitioner in her stand that the
area of 803,781 square meters was typewritten in the
document as 83,781 square meters, not because of the
typist’s error in omitting the number “O" between the
numbers “8" and “3" in the first three digits but because the
latter area of only 83,781 square meters was the one
intended for distribution, then the

________________

16 Memorandum for Respondents, 7–8; Rollo, 49.

17 Rollo, 70.
18 Ibid., 30.

529

VOL. 169, JANUARY 27, 1989 529

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

irresistible question would be how and why the parties

arrived at that particular latter figure. It will be observed
that such a portion would constitute only 10.42336% of the
total land area covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
42643. On top of this, the assumed area of 83,781 square
meters has still to be divided into fifteen (15) parts to arrive
at the aliquot portions of 12/15 and 1/15 of the other heirs in
this particular property. Why would the parties deliberately
create such an unlikely mathematical situation which would
complicate the actual physical segregation of the area
supposed to be distributed?
It is, therefore, a logical and credible explanation that
the omission of the zero between the figures “8" and “3"
converted “803,781" to “83,781", a product purely of clerical
oversight. Petitioner has not offered any plausible contrary
explanation. Parenthetically, she had the assistance of legal
counsel in the intestate proceedings
19
and in the preparation
of the project of partition.
Petitioner’s lamentations of injustice in the partition are
demonstrably unfounded. 20
It will be observed that according
to her own computation, she received her 1/16 share in the
estate consisting of 279,803 square meters of land, while her
half brothers received on the average 154,975.11 square
meters each. Even if the supposed shares of the respondents
in the remaining 720.000 square meters in the lot covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42643 were to be added,
the share of each brother would be only 202,975.11 square
meters. There would not be a substantial difference in value
since the petitioner received 190,000 square meters of land
located also in Antipolo, Rizal; while in Balara, Quezon
City, she received more than her half brothers, that is,
75,803 square meters as against their individual 74,309.70
square meters. It was only in Pasong Tamo where she
received slightly less, 14,000 square meters compared to
Enrique’s and Jose’s 14,115 square meters each, but more
than Antonio, Jr.'s 13,621 square meters.
The ineluctable consequence of the foregoing
considerations is that, both in law and equity, the court a
quo and the respon-

_____________

19 Memorandum for Respondents, 8–9; Rollo, 49.

20 Annex B, Petition; Rollo, 38–39.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Abonada

dent court committed no error prejudicial to petitioner.

WHEREFORE, certiorari is DENIED and the decision of
the respondent court is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied. Decision affirmed.

 Notes.—Errors of judgment committed by the judge are
not correctible by certiorari. (Commodity Financing Co., Inc.
vs. Jimenez, 91 SCRA 57.)
The power of trial court to extend relief from judgment
under Sec. 2 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court confined only
to cases when a judgment or order is entered through fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence. (Cabales vs. Nery,
94 SCRA 374.)
Fundamental is the rule that execution must conform to
that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the
decision. Likewise a court cannot, except for clerical error or
omissions, amend a judgment that has become final.
(Laingo vs. Camilo, 130 SCRA 144.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.