Vda. De Reyes v.

CA, 169 SCRA 524 (1989)

Facts:

Beatriz, opposes the correction of judgment and the re-opening of the probate proceedings to
correct an alleged typographical error in the sqm of the Antipolo land in question, claiming that there
was no typographical error and the parties intended to share only that area of land.

The administratix, together with the other three distributees filed a MOTION TO REOPEN SPECIAL
PROCEEDIGNS for the purpose of correcting an alleged typographical error in the description of the
parcel of land (correct land area: 803,781.51 but what was written im the petitions was 83,781sqm).

An opposition was made.

Trial court decision:

(1) opened for purpose of correcting clerical error in description of land

(2) correct land area to conform with description of land area in TCT

(3) correction be made in the project of partition

An appeal was lodged.

CA: Affirm the trial court decision.

Pacita's allegation: There was no clerical error as to the area. The area in the project of partition is
correct. She would not have relinquished her share in the Antipolo land if she new nothing would
remain from the land. It was even repeated 4x in the project of partition

ISSUE:

WON there was a clerical error, which is an exemption to correcting or supplying a final judgment
already entered?
HELD:

YES.

On correction of clerical errors:

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 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.

The Trial court already found that a typographical or clerical error was clearly committed by the
inadvertence in the project of partition.

Probate proceeding, nature:

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 co-partners 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.

Clearly, mere inadvertence could be corrected for the decision or judgment to be valid.