Topic: Rule 39

Republic Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., et el. vs. IAC, Sps. Domingo And Felicisima
Fernandez
Nos. L-71131-32. July 27, 1987
Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court.
Ponente: FELICIANO, J.
Facts:
 Sps. Fernandez and their broker: went to the Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.
(RSIC) to borrow P50,000. After negotiations, a contract of loan was agreed upon. Sps.
Fernandez were then furnished a copy of the mortgage contract only. The purported Deed
of Sale with assumption of mortgage of the property of Sps. Fernandez was executed on
September 5, 1968, but Sps. Fernandez were charged with interest beginning the following
day. Sps. Fernandez were told that after March 6, 1969, the interest would be referred to as
rentals. The rentals were later transferred to Republic Mines.
 Francisco Koh (President of RSIC and Republic Mines): later, learned that Sps. Fernandez
were ready to redeem the property at P60,000. He then raised the price to P80,000 which
Sps. Fernandez refused.
 Sps. Fernandez: stopped paying “rentals” in May of 1969
 Republic Mines: filed an ejectment suit for the refusal to pay rentals.
 CFI: the property belongs to Sps. Fernandez and the Deed of Sale was only a simulated
contract.
 IAC: affirmed the decision of the CFI
 MR: denied
 Sps Fernandez: filed a "Very Urgent Clarificatory Inquiry" stating that there was ambiguity
with the final judgment of the CFI. This is the reason why the Register of Deeds won’t
transfer the TCT under their name and cancel the TCT under Republic Mines’ name.
 RSIC: opposed the clarificatory inquiry. The petitioners argue that the dispositive portion
has become "unamendable" because the decision has become final. The petitioners suggest
that the private respondents must seek their relief elsewhere and "in another separate suit."

Issue: Whether the court may still amend the final decision to clarify an ambiguity
Held: YES. CFI decision was amended.
Ratio:
 Court may still amend a final and executory judgment to clarify an ambiguity caused by an
omission or mistake in the disposition of the decision.
 There are powerful considerations of an equitable nature which impel the Court to the
conclusions reached here.
 It cannot be an adequate remedy for the respondent-spouses to have to start once more in
the Court of First Instance, to ask that court to clarify its own judgment, a process which
could be prolonged by the filing of petitions for review in the Court of Appeals and
eventually in the Supreme Court once more. Public policy of the most fundamental and
insistent kind requires that litigation must at last come to an end if it is not to become more
pernicious and unbearable than the very injustice or wrong sought to be corrected thereby.

Vanya Klarika Nuque | UNIVERSITY OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC