EN BANC
[G.R. No. 156228. July 2, 2013.]
MA. TERESA VIDAL, LULU MARQUEZ, AND CARLOS SOBREMONTE, petitioners, vs. MA. TERESA O. ESCUETA, REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O. ESCUETA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 2, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 156228 (Ma. Teresa Vidal, Lulu Marquez, and Carlos Sobremonte v. Ma. Teresa O. Escueta, represented by Herman O. Escueta.) — Before the Court is a Motion to Correct Dispositive Portion of Decision Dated December 10, 2003 filed by counsel for West Highland Corporation on May 14, 2013, praying for the rectification of the dispositive portion of the Decision to reflect "TCT No. 15321" and "Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City" instead of "TCT No. 15324" and "Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City."
On December 10, 2003, this Court rendered its Decision affirming the July 23, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68895 which sustained the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 208, that reversed and set aside the Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60; and granting the motion for execution filed by respondent Ma. Teresa O. Escueta in Civil Case No. 17520. The fallo of the Court's Decision reads:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The petitioners and all those acting for and in their behalf are directed to vacate, at their own expense, the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15324 of the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City and deliver possession of the property to the vendees Mary Liza Santos, Susana Lim and Johnny Lim. This is without prejudice to the right of the vendees to recover from the petitioners reasonable compensation for their possession of the property from January 2000 until such time that they vacate the property. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED. 1
On February 13, 2004, the Court's Decision became final and executory and an Entry of Judgment 2 was accordingly issued.
In his August 17, 2012 letter to the Court, Atty. Rogelio M. Tiempo alleged that: Mary Liza Santos, Susana Lim and Johnny Lim, who were the vendees of the heirs of Abelardo Escueta, sold to his client, West Highland Corporation, the subject property; on account of the sale, TCT No. 008-20112000004 was issued in the name of the corporation; while the case between petitioners and respondent was pending, petitioners caused the annotation (under Entry No. 71544/T-No. 15321) of an adverse claim on the subject property; in order to lift the annotation, which was carried over to TCT No. 008-20112000004, a petition in court has to be filed, together with a copy of the Court's Decision; and the Entry of Judgment dated February 13, 2004 referred to "Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15324 of the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City" instead of "Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15321 of the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City." Thus, Atty. Tiempo requested that if TCT No. 15321 of the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City is erroneously indicated as TCT No. 15324 of the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City in the Decision, the same be corrected and that he be furnished with a certified true copy thereof.
In the Resolution dated January 8, 2013, this Court resolved to note without action the August 17, 2012 letter of Atty. Tiempo.
However, Atty. Tiempo reiterated his request in his February 18, 2013 letter to the Court thru Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal.
On March 12, 2013, the Court again resolved to note without action the February 18, 2013 letter of Atty. Tiempo "considering that neither West Highland Corporation nor Atty. Tiempo are parties to the instant case."
Once more, on May 14, 2013, West Highland Corporation, through Atty. Tiempo, filed the instant motion, which, as aforesaid, requested to reflect in the dispositive portion of the Decision "TCT No. 15321" and "Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City" instead of the erroneous entries "TCT No. 15324" and "Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City."
The motion is granted.
Although the movant is clearly not a party to the case, it is nonetheless the successor-in-interest of the respondent; hence, considered as a real party-in-interest to take into account the relief prayed for. After perusing the records, it is apparent that a clerical or typographical error was committed when what ought to be TCT No. 15321 and Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City was erroneously indicated in the Court's Decision as TCT No. 15324 and Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City. 3 The pleadings of the parties, the documents attached to the records, and Annexes "B," "C," and "D" 4 of the instant motion indubitably show the true and accurate TCT number of the Torrens title and the location of the subject property.
Even if the Court's Decision attained finality on February 13, 2004, clerical or typographical errors therein can still be corrected. While a judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable, it may still be modified if what is involved is the correction of (1) clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (3) void judgments. 5 The instant case falls squarely under the first exception.
WHEREFORE, the motion for correction is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court's December 10, 2003 Decision is hereby CORRECTED and MODIFIED in that TCT No. 15324 and Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City — indicated on pages 4 and 20 of the Decision — are changed and corrected to TCT No. 15321 and Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City. Let copies of the corrected and modified Decision be served on the parties and the movant herein." (adv3)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 167-168. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
2. Id. at 173-174, 178.
3. Body of the Decision, id. at 151; dispositive portion, id. at 167.
4. Rollo, pp. 187-196.
5. Anthony Orduña, et al. v. Eduardo J. Fuentebella, et al., G.R. No. 176841, September 5, 2012 (Resolution, Third Division), citing Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation, G.R. No. 176123, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 117, 131; Edillo v. Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010, 610 SCRA 590, 601; Government Service Insurance System v. Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br. 71, G.R. No. 175393, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 552, 579; Mercado v. Mercado, G.R. No. 178672, March 19, 2009, 582 SCRA 11, 16-17; and Peña v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 159520, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 383, 404.