Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDITED ALICE Motion Correction To Amend Final Order
EDITED ALICE Motion Correction To Amend Final Order
SUPREME COURT
5 Sharia’a Judicial District
th
Pikit, Cotabato
PALAWAN L. MACADINDANG,
SCC. CIVIL CASE NO. 2022-
Petitioner. 645
x------------------------------------------x FOR:
ELIZABETH BATUGAN,
Respondent. CONFIRMATION OF
DIVORCE BY TALAQ
Local Civil Registry Office,
Makilala, Cotabato
PSA, Quezon City
x------------------------------------------x
2. However, a Letter dated 13 June 2023 from the PSA herein attached
as Annex “A” was referred herein to the undersigned informing the legal
representative of petitioner that the first name of the wife as indicated in the
dispositive portion of the Judgment dated 05 October 2022 was
inadvertently written as ELIZABENTH. That it does not match the Marriage
Certificate filed in the said agency. The rest of her name was correctly
spelled as ELIZABETH in other portions of the judgment/decision. A copy
of the Judgment dated 05 October 2022 is hereto attached as Annex "B".
1
xxx “WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing the petition is
hereby GRANTED. The Divorce by talaq issued by PALAWAN L.
MACADINDANG against ELIZABENTH BATUGAN on February 2,
1985 is hereby CONFIRMED. The marriage bond dated June 5, 1970 of
the spouses is declared DISSOLVED. DIVORCE DECREE is finally
approved to the petitioner. MS. ELIZABETH BATUGAN-MACADINDANG
shall resume using her maiden family name. xxx
The court has inherent power to amend and control its process
and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice, and
when it finds that the ends of justice would be better served, the court
may disregard technicalities and amend its order or process that has
not become final. And even if the decision has become final it is
already settled that clerical errors or mistakes or omissions plainly due
to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied after the
judgment has been entered. In the case at, bar it will be observed that
the court, as prayed for, corrected the dispositive portion as to the
designation of the parties therein to make it conform with the body of
the decision. xxx
5. In the case of Ang Lin Chi vs. Castelo2, it was held that:
2
PRAYER