G.R. No. 47027 . January 27, 1989.
BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PILAR IBAÑEZ VDA. DE ZUZUARREGUI, Administratrix, ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI and PACITA JAVIER, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves the intestate estate of Don Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Sr. The heirs are his surviving spouse, respondent Pilar Ibañez Vda. de Zuzuarregui, and his four illegitimate children: petitioner Beatriz de Zuzuarregui Vda. de Reyes and respondents Antonio, Jr., Enrique, and Jose de Zuzuarregui. A project of partition dated June 17, 1958, was approved by the probate court. Among the properties partitioned was a parcel of land in Antipolo covered by TCT No. 42643. The project of partition repeatedly stated the area of this land as 83,781 square meters. Petitioner did not receive a share in this specific parcel, having relinquished her rights in lieu of a larger share in other Antipolo properties.
In 1973, the respondent administratrix and the three male heirs moved to reopen the proceedings to correct an alleged typographical error in the project of partition. They contended the correct area was 803,781.51 square meters, not 83,781 square meters. Petitioner opposed, arguing the stated area was intentional and that she was fraudulently induced to relinquish her share based on the smaller figure. The trial court granted the motion to correct the clerical error, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court correctly allowed the correction of the area stated in the final project of partition from 83,781 sq. m. to 803,781.51 sq. m. as a mere clerical error.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic rests on the established exception that clerical errors in a final judgment may be corrected even after finality. A clerical error is a mistake or omission due to inadvertence, which can be rectified by reference to the existing records. Here, the Court found the error was clerical. The probate proceeding’s very purpose is the complete settlement and distribution of the entire estate. It would be illogical and contrary to this purpose for the heirs to intentionally leave a substantial portion (720,000 sq. m.) of a titled property undistributed. The repetition of the erroneous figure merely perpetuated the initial inadvertent omission of the digit “0” between “8” and “3”.
The Court rejected petitioner’s claim of fraud, noting she was assisted by counsel. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of the distributed properties showed petitioner received a larger total land area than her half-brothers, even if the corrected area for the Antipolo property were included in their shares. Thus, no substantial injustice was shown. The correction merely aligned the project of partition with the true area stated in the Torrens title and effected the intended complete partition of the estate. The petition was denied.