BEATRIZ BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES, petitioner vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PILAR IBAÑEZ VDA. DE ZUZUARREGUI, Administrtri!, ANTONIO ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, "R., ENRI#UE DE ZUZUARREGUI nd PACITA "AVIER, respondents. FACTS$ Parties/ Heirs: Petitioner:
Beatriz de Zuzuarregui Vda. de Reyes, illegitimate illegitim ate child of decedent
Respondents: Pilar !"a#ez Vda. de Zuzuarregui, surviving spouse, and administrati$ %ntonio de Zuzuarregui, Zuzuarregui, &r., &r., illegitimate illegitimate child child 'nri(ue de Zuzuarregui, illegitimate child and &ose de Zuzuarregui, illegitimate child.
&une )*, )+-
pro"ate court order approving the proect of partition "y the: •
• • • •
3
Pilar !"a#ez Vda. de Zuzuarregui, )0/)1, inclusive of )/0 of said assets 2hich pertains to her share in the conugal partnership Beatriz, )/)1 %ntonio, &r., )/)1 'nri(ue, )/)1 and &ose, )/)1. %mong %mong the the real real propert properties ies in in the proect proect of of partiti partition on is is a parce parcell of land land covered "y and descri"ed in 4ransfer 5ertificate of 4itle 6o. 70178 located in %ntipolo, Rizal: o %rea: stated stated as -8,*-) -8,*-) s(uare s(uare meters, meters, o %ssessed value of P1,789.99. P1,789.99. o 64': 4his statement of said area 2as repeated in said document four time, that is, in adudicating the corresponding portions of said land to: Pilar ;)0/)<, %ntonio, &r. ;)/)<, 'nri(ue ;)/)<, and &ose ;)/)<. 4he petitioner did not have a share in the aforesaid parcel of land "ecause she relin(uished her right thereto =in lieu of her "igger share in %ntipolo, Rizal, real estate property.=
&anua &anuary ry 0+, 0+, )+* )+*8 8 3 the the resp respon onde dent nt admi adminis nistra tratri tri$/s $/spou pouse se and and the the othe otherr three three distri"utes/sons filed a motion to reopen >pecial Proceedings 6o. ?380 for the purpose of %&rr'%tin( n ))'('d t*+&(r+i%) t *+&(r+i%) 'rr&r in in the description of the parcel of land
covered "y 4ransfer 5ertificate of 4itle 6o. 70178 since, according to them, the correct land area is -/,0-1.21 s34r' m't'rs nd n&t -/,0-1 s34r' m't'rs . 4he heirs of Beatriz de Zuzuarregui Vda. de Reyes filed their opposition to said motion. @arch 01, )+*8 3 4he 5ourt of Airst !nstance of Rizal, Branch !V, ?uezon 5ity issued an order in >pecial Proceedings ?380, entitled =!ntestate 'state of on %ntonio de Zuzuarregui, >r.=, approved the motion. >eptem"er )+, )+** 3 5ourt of %ppeals affirmed the 5A! order after appeal "y the petitioner PetitionerCs 5ontention: %ccording to the petitioner, there 2as no such clerical error. Dhile it is not disputed that the area covered "y 4ransfer 5ertificate of 4itle 6o. 70178 is -98,*-).) s(uare meters, the petitioner insists that =the area intended "y the heirs of on %ntonio de Zuzuarregui, >r., in the Proect of Partition as approved "y the trial court is the area of -8,*-) s(. m. and not -98,*-),) s(. m. >he claims that she 2ould not have relin(uished her share in said parcel of land if the true area 2as not fraudulently concealed from her at the time the proect of partition 2as e$ecuted. >he further contends that the fact that the description of the area as -8,*-) s(uare meters 2as repeated several times is sufficient evidence to sho2 that such 2as the area intended in the proect of partition.
ISSUE$
Dhether or not the lot area indicated in the Proect of Partition as approved "y the trial court is a clerical error
RULING$
PetitionerCs contentions are 2ithout merit. 4here is, therefore, no reason to distur", much less to reverse, the factual finding of the lo2er court that a typographical or clerical error 2as clearly committed "y inadvertence in the proect of partition. 4hat a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to s'tt)' t' 'ntir' 'stt' of the deceased is &56i&4s nd ')'m'ntr*. !t 2ould "e a"surd for the heirs to intentionally e$cluded or leave a parcel of land or a portion thereof undistri"uted or undivided "ecause the proceeding is +r'%is')* d'si(n'd t& 'nd t' %&mm4nit* &7 int'r'sts in +r&+'rti's ')d 5* %&8+rtn'rs +r& indi6is& 2ithout designation or segregation of shares. !t is readily apparent from the proect of partition that it 2as meant to "e a full and complete adudication and partition of all properties of the estate, necessarily including the entire area of the land covered "y 4ransfer 5ertificate of 4itle 6o. 70178. 4hus as perceptively posed "y the (ueries of the respondents, if the intention of the heirs 2as to maEe only a partial adudication and distri"ution of the su"ect parcel of land, 2hy is it that they did not maEe any further disposition of the remaining "alance of *09,999 s(uare metersF Dhat sound reason 2ould the heirs have in holding in suspense the distri"ution of the difference of *09,999 s(uare metersF
!t is 2ell settled that even if a decision has "ecome final, %)'ri%) 'rr&rs &r
mist9's &r &missi&n +)in)* d4' t& ind6'rt'n%' &r n'()i('n%' m* 5' %&rr'%t'd &r s4++)i'd '6'n 7t'r t' :4d(m'nt s 5''n 'nt'r'd . 4he correction of a clerical error is an '!%'+ti&n t& t' ('n'r) r4)' that no amendment or correction may be made by the court in its judgment once the latter had become final. 4he court may maEe this amendment '! +rt' and, for this purpose, it may resort to the pleadings filed "y the parties, the courtGs findings of facts and its conclusions of la2 as e$pressed in the "ody of the decision.
