Spouses Salitico vs.

Heirs of Resurreccion

Nacar vs. Nistal

Facts:
Respondent Ildefonso Japitana filed the complaint in Civil Case No. 65 and entitled it
“Claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar with Preliminary Attahment” to
recover an outstanding debt of the late Nacar due respondent. He further alleged that
Nicanor Nacar is about to remove and dispose the property (seven carabaos) with intent
to defraud him. Considering that Mr. Japitana had given security according to the Rules
of Court, Judge Nistal issued the order commanding the provincial sheriff to attach the 7
cattles in the posession of petitioner Nicanor Nacar. Actually only 4 carabaos were
attached because 3 carabaos had earlier been slaughtered during the rites preceding the
burial of the late Isabelo Nacar.
Nicanor Nacar filed a motion to dismiss but it was denied by the court. Hence, this
petition.
Issue: WON the respondent judge erred in not dismissing the claim against the estate of
the late Isabelo Nacar.
Held: Yes. Indeed, although respondent Japitana may have a legal right to recover an
indebtedness due him, petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no correlative legal duty to pay
debt for the simple reason that there is nothing in the complaint to show that he
incurred the debt or had anything to do with the creation of his liability. It is also patent
from the complaint that rspondent Japitana filed the case against petitioner Nacar tp
rcover 7 carabaos allegedly belonging to Isabelo Nacar which Japitana wanted to recover
from the possession of the petitioner to answer for the outstanding debt of the late
Isabelo Nacar. This matter, however, is only ancillary to the main action. The ancillary
matter does not cure a fatal defect in the complaint for the main action is for the
recovery of an outstanding debt of the late lsabelo Nacar due respondent Japitana, a
cause of action about which petitioner Nacar has nothing to do.

Anderson vs Perkins

De Reyes vs. CA
It is well settled that even if a decision has become final, clerical errors or mistakes or
omission plainly due to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied even
after the judgment has been entered. The correction of a clerical error is an exception to
the general rule that no amendment or correction may be made by the court in its
judgment once the latter had become final. 11 The court may make this amendment ex
parte and, for this purpose, it may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties, the court's
findings of facts and its conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision.
That a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle
the entire estate of the deceased is obvious and elementary. It would be absurd for the
heirs to intentionally excluded or leave a parcel of land or a portion thereof
undistributed or undivided because the proceeding is precisely designed to end the
community of interests in properties held by co-partners pro indiviso without
designation or segregation of shares.