Case Digest (G.R. No. 179104)
Facts:
Anastacio Tuballa Heirs v. Raul Cabrera, et al., G.R. No. 179104, February 29, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the children and heirs of Anastacio Tuballa (Juliana, Agustin and Herman Tuballa); respondents include Cabrera Enterprises, Incorporated and members of the Cabrera family.On June 21, 1991, Anastacio Tuballa filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Cabrera Enterprises, Inc. over a parcel of land described in his Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. FV-16880 as Lot No. 5697, Pls-659-D (area: 11.0337 hectares) in Bondo, Siaton, Negros Oriental. Tuballa alleged long possession since time immemorial and that his title derived from Free Patent No. 544264 (granted September 28, 1973) and the OCT dated October 11, 1974. He alleged that in about 1982 laborers employed by Cabrera Enterprises intruded on the land despite his protests.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, Dumaguete City, rendered a Decision on September 30, 1994 (penned by Judge Saturnino Ll. Villegas) awarding possession to Tuballa, damages and attorneys’ fees; the dispositive paragraph, however, mistakenly ordered the defendant to vacate “Lot No. 6597, Pls-659-D” (a transposition of the digits 6 and 5). Cabrera Enterprises, by its manager Agnes Cabrera and family members, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a Decision dated October 25, 2002 (penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, concurred in by AJs Labitoria and Guarina III), affirmed the RTC judgment but deleted awards for actual damages and attorneys’ fees. An Entry of Judgment issued March 7, 2003 confirmed finality of the CA decision.
Petitioners pointed out to the RTC the typographical error (6597 vs. the correct 5697) in the RTC dispositive and sought correction. On January 3, 2006 the RTC (Judge Cesar Manuel Cadiz, Jr.) denied correction, reasoning that the decision to be executed was that of the Court of Appeals and the RTC lacked authority to correct or clarify the CA decision.
Tuballa then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 before the CA to compel correction; the CA dismissed it on September 25, 2006 for procedural deficiencies and denied reconsideration on July 16, 2007. Thereafter the heirs of Tuballa filed a Petition for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Regional Trial Court correct or clarify an alleged error in a judgment of the Court of Appeals after the CA decision has become final?
- May the Supreme Court modify a final RTC decision to correct a clerical or typographical error (the transposition of Lot No. 6597 to 5697) notwithstanding the general rule ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)