G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968
DONATO MATA, petitioner, vs. HON. DELFIN B. FLORES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, PETRA CORPUZ DE MARIANO and JULIAN MARIANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Donato Mata filed Civil Case No. 4117 against respondents Petra Corpuz de Mariano and Julian Mariano to establish his title to five parcels of land, which he alleged were held by the Marianos to guarantee a debt of P350, and to recover possession upon payment of that sum. The Marianos, although summoned, mailed their answer one day after the reglementary period. Consequently, upon Mata’s motion, they were declared in default. Mata then presented his evidence ex-parte, and the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, presided by respondent Judge Delfin B. Flores, rendered a decision on January 22, 1966, ordering the Marianos to return the land to Mata upon payment of P350. Notice of this decision was served on the Marianos on January 27, 1966. On February 4, 1966, the Marianos filed a motion for reconsideration. Mata filed an opposition on February 19, 1966. On February 22, 1966, the court issued an order, received by the Marianos on February 25, 1966, which stated: “The motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.” On March 24, 1966, Mata filed an ex-parte motion for a writ of execution, claiming the decision had become final. Instead of granting it, Judge Flores issued an order on the same date clarifying that his February 22 order was intended to deny Mata’s opposition, not the Marianos’ motion for reconsideration, and he required Mata’s counsel to answer the motion for reconsideration within ten days, failing which the Marianos’ answer would be admitted. Mata reiterated his petition for execution on March 29, 1966, which was denied on March 30, 1966. Mata then commenced this original action for mandamus to compel the issuance of the writ of execution.

ISSUE

Whether the decision in Civil Case No. 4117 had become final and executory, thereby making it the ministerial duty of respondent Judge to issue a writ of execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the writ of mandamus. The Court held that the decision had not become final and executory. The order of February 22, 1966, which ostensibly denied the motion for reconsideration, was a product of mistake or excusable negligence, as clarified by the respondent Judge’s order of March 24, 1966, which stated that it was actually Mata’s opposition that was denied. The Court found the clarification credible because: (1) the Marianos’ answer was filed only one day late due to an oversight about the number of days in October; and (2) their answer and motion for reconsideration, supported by an affidavit detailing a deed of absolute sale from Mata to Joventino Corpuz dated June 29, 1923, showed a probable defense and the risk of grave injustice if they were not allowed to present evidence. The Court further held that respondent Judge had the inherent power under Rule 135, Section 5 of the Rules of Court to amend his orders to conform to law and justice and to correct mistakes in the records, even after the lapse of the appeal period, as the motion for reconsideration had not in fact been denied. The relief was also available under Rule 38 against judgments rendered through mistake or excusable negligence, and the Judge had the duty to afford such relief when the mistake was his own.