Purificacion Santos Imperial vs. Hon. Judge Emmanuel Muoz and Luis Santos (IMPERIAL v.

MUOZ) RULE 90: Order of Partition/Distribution FACTS: October 1957: Dr. Luis Santos (Santos), surviving spouse of deceased Fermina Santos who died intestate, instituted Sp. Proc. No. 1049 before the Bulacan CFI January 1958: Santos was appointed regular administrator, there being no opposition filed by the only other heir, Purificacion Santos Imperial (Imperial), adopted child of the deceased April 1965: Imperial entered her appearance in the intestate proceedings as oppositor and filed a motion to require the regular administrator to render an accounting September 1966: a project of partition was made, adjudicating upon Santos an undivided 5/8 share in the estate, and upon Imperial, the remaining 3/8 June 1967: Imperial's motion to require Santos to render an accounting resulted in the CFI issuing the assailed order approving the project of partition, "the opposition to the project having been withdrawn and finding the same to be in order"; copies of the order were furnished the parties in open court January 1968: the CFI approved the compromise agreement of the parties wherein Santos agreed to let Imperial have the amount of P53,072.81 in full settlement of her 3/8 share in the income of the estate, exclusive of any other amount she received in the past from the administrator; the amount was actually paid to her April 1968: the CFI again approved the final partial project of partition dated March 1968 filed by Santos w/ the same sharing ratio as the one approved in June 1967 June 1968: Santos filed a motion for correction of the project of partition, claiming that it was erroneous for not conforming with the ruling in Santillon vs. Miranda stating that "[w]hen intestacy occurs, a surviving spouse concurring with only one legitimate child of the deceased is entitled to 1/2 of the estate of the deceased spouse under Art. 996 of the Civil Code", and therefore, Santos should get 3/4 of the partitioned properties whilst Imperial is to get only the remaining Imperial filed a formal opposition to the motion for correction, contending that the orders of June 1967 and April 1968 are not interlocutory but final orders February 1969: the CFI granted the motion for correction March 1969: Imperial filed a motion to set aside the order of February 1969 July 1969: same was denied by the CFI

... hence, this petition. ISSUE: Is an order of a probate court in testate/intestate proceedings approving a project of partition w/c clearly fixed the distributive shares to w/c each heir is entitled to is merely interlocutory so that the probate court can correct and set aside the same anytime, or is it final and therefore appealable w/in the 30-day period for appeal? RULING: Order of probate court approving project of partition determining distributive shares of heirs = FINAL and APPEALABLE Rule 109, S1 (a): a person may appeal in special proceedings from an order of the Court of First Instance where such order determines the [...] distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled

 Being final in character, the questioned order should have been appealed by the party adversely affected w/in the 30-day reglementary period provided for appeal; this was NOT DONE Also: Erroneous decree/judgment, although granted w/o legal authority and contrary to the express provision of the statute = NOT VOID Where no appeal is taken from such erroneous decree/judgment, it must be conceded to have FULL FORCE AND EFFECT

Batbatan vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar RAs 9048 & 10172: Clerical Error Law FACTS: Petitioner Eligia Batbatan (Eligia) = mother of two children, Jorge and Delia The children's names were registered in the office of the civil registrar of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur as Jorge Batbatan Ang and Delia Batbatan Luy The surnames of the children were taken from the name and alias of their father, Ang Kiu Chuy, a.k.a. Sioma Luy, a married man Eligia filed a petition for the correction of entries as re: the names of Jorge and Delia (who were then still minors), so as to have the "Ang" and "Luy" surnames dropped from her children's names The trial court denied the petition because "[e]ntries in the records of birth in the office of the local civil registrar are allowed only to correct clerical status [and not] when the effect is to change status, citizenship, or any substantial alterations, which should be decided in an appropriate proceeding"

... hence his petition. ISSUE: Was the trial court correct in refusing to grant the corrections sought by Eligia? RULING: NO. Guevarra Lim vs. Republic: (a) Clerical error = implies mistakes by the clerk in copying or writing, the making of wrong entries in the public records contrary to existing facts (b) An error is not clerical and does not fall under the summary procedure contemplated in Art. 412 of the Civil code if it affects substantial matters/if its correction will bring out a substantial change The corrections sought in this petition do not go so far as to affect citizenship or status, and would not effect any substantial change/alteration w/c should be threshed out in a proper action The certificates of live birth of both children clearly identify them as illegitimate children (in Jorge's case, his parents executed the "Affidavit to be Accomplished in Case of an Illegitimate Child" at the back of the certificate; in Delia's case, "Item 23. Legitimate" is answered "No") The corrections sought, if granted, would bring about compliance w/ Art. 363 of the Civil Code, which provides that "[i]llegitimate children (referred to in Art. 287) shall bear the surnames of the mother" Therefore, Eligia's prayer to have the surnames not sanctioned by the Civil Code stricken out should have been granted by the lower court