G.R. No. 48414 ; October 22, 1941
Juan Magbanua, petitioner, vs. Honorable Conrado Barrios, Judge, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and Nicolasa Pomarin, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan Magbanua sued Lucilo Calibara in the justice of the peace court of Pototan, Iloilo, for a sum of money and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment. The sheriff levied the attachment on “30 cavans and 6 gantas of palay.” Respondent Nicolasa Pomarin, the estranged wife of Calibara, intervened, claiming the palay as her own. The justice of the peace decided in favor of Magbanua, awarding him the palay. Pomarin appealed to the Court of First Instance, which rendered judgment in her favor, ordering Magbanua to deliver to her “30 cavans and 6 gantas of palay” or pay its value. After this judgment became final, a controversy arose as to whether the “cavans” mentioned contained 75 liters or 150 liters each. Magbanua’s counsel contended a cavan contains 75 liters. Pomarin contended she claimed the specific 30 cavans and 6 gantas the sheriff had taken, which the sheriff’s return stated were measured “at 150 liters per cavan.” Upon verifying the sheriff’s return, which specified the attached palay was “sixty-one sacks… equivalent to thirty cavanes and six gantas more or less (at 150 liters per cavan),” Judge Conrado Barrios issued an order sustaining Pomarin’s contention and ordered execution accordingly. In a subsequent order, Judge Barrios clarified that the phrase “cavanes de palay” in the decision must be interpreted in relation to the sheriff’s return. Magbanua assails this interpretation via certiorari, contending the court had no jurisdiction to amend its final decision.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess thereof by interpreting the phrase “cavanes de palay” in the final judgment to refer to cavans of 150 liters each, as indicated in the sheriff’s return, rather than cavans of 75 liters.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction. The court did not amend its final decision but merely clarified the ambiguous phrase “cavanes de palay” contained in its dispositive part in view of the controversy that arose during execution. Since what the intervenor Pomarin claimed was the specific palay seized by the sheriff, and the court sustained her claim, and since the sheriff’s return showed the seized palay was measured at 150 liters per cavan, the court’s interpretation of its own decision was correct. The court had the power to enter the orders to make the writ of execution conformable to law and justice. The orders of the respondent judge were affirmed.