G.R. No. L-70603 May 30, 1986
ANTONIO ORBASE and MILAGROS ORBASE, petitioners, vs. MAXIMA NOCOS, JULIAN ZAPANTA, CESAR PANIMBATAN and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Antonio and Milagros Orbase sued private respondents to recover ownership and possession of a building constructed on the latter’s land. The trial court declared the Orbases as the lawful owners and ordered the respondents to vacate and deliver possession. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) affirmed the decision on November 9, 1983, recognizing the petitioners as builders in good faith entitled to reimbursement for construction expenses and a right of retention. This decision became final and executory on March 9, 1984, with an entry of judgment issued.
Subsequently, private respondents filed a motion for clarification, arguing the decision failed to specify the exact reimbursement amount, leaving the parties in uncertainty. The IAC required the Orbases to submit their claimed expenses. They complied, stating a total of P23,199.85. After considering objections, the IAC, on December 5, 1984, issued a resolution “amending” its dispositive portion to fix the reimbursement at P12,298.89 plus P5,000.00 previously paid. The Orbases then moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that the IAC lacked jurisdiction to amend a final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its December 5, 1984 resolution after its decision had become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the IAC did not lack jurisdiction. The Court held the resolution, though using the term “amended,” did not substantively alter the final decision but merely clarified it. The original decision already affirmed the petitioners’ right to reimbursement as builders in good faith. The clarification was necessary to implement this affirmative relief by specifying the exact amount, thereby preventing further litigation and ending the parties’ state of uncertainty. The Court noted the petitioners initially participated without objection in the clarification process, only raising jurisdictional issues after their claimed amount was not accepted. Striking down the clarification would be counter-productive, forcing the petitioners to file a separate suit to recover expenses while the respondents remained deprived of their property due to the petitioners’ unresolved right of retention. The act was a proper exercise of the court’s inherent power to clarify and execute its judgments for complete justice.