G.R. No. L-13927; February 29, 1960
Trinidad Manois-Salonga and Isaias Reyes Salonga, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Imelda V. Natividad and Marciano Natividad, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On November 12, 1954, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants Imelda V. Natividad and her husband Marciano Natividad (joined as the husband of Imelda) to collect P10,000 based on a promissory note dated March 5, 1954, executed solely by defendant Imelda V. Natividad in favor of plaintiff Trinidad M. Salonga. Defendants, in their answer, admitted the execution of the note by Imelda and a partial payment of P1,000, pleading for time to pay the balance due to business reverses and Imelda’s illness. At the hearing on November 17, 1955, plaintiffs admitted the P1,000 payment, and Imelda “confessed judgment assuming the payment of the balance of P9,000.00.” The lower court rendered a decision on the same date, condemning “the herein defendant” to pay P9,000, attorney’s fees, and costs. After this decision became final and executory, plaintiffs moved for execution. The writ issued referred only to Imelda. After the writ was returned unsatisfied, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to correct a “clerical error” in the decision, arguing the word “defendant” in the dispositive part should be “defendants” since the case was against both spouses. The trial court granted the motion on January 31, 1956, amending the decision to change “defendant” to “defendants” and ordering a new writ to include the husband. Subsequently, defendant Marciano Natividad filed a petition to set aside this amendatory order and the alias writ, contending the complaint stated no cause of action against him, the original decision was final, and the amendment sought to correct a substantial, not clerical, error by making him solidarily liable for his wife’s separate debt. The trial court sustained Marciano’s petition, setting aside its January 31 order and lifting the garnishment on his salary. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in setting aside its amendatory order of January 31, 1956, which changed the word “defendant” to “defendants” in the dispositive portion of its final decision, thereby refusing to hold defendant husband Marciano Natividad liable on the promissory note executed solely by his wife, Imelda V. Natividad.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order setting aside the amendatory order and refusing to hold Marciano Natividad liable. The Court held:
1. The appeal was proper, as the order of execution (and the amendatory order upon which it was based) was deemed to vary the terms of the final judgment.
2. The trial court, in its original decision, intended to hold only defendant wife Imelda V. Natividad liable. The complaint was based solely on her promissory note, with no cause of action alleged against the husband. There were no allegations that the loan was a conjugal partnership liability, incurred with the husband’s consent, or used for the family’s benefit. The wife alone confessed judgment and assumed payment. A judgment must conform to the pleadings and proof; therefore, the husband could not be held liable on the note.
3. The defendants’ answer, which admitted the indebtedness and expressed willingness to pay, did not constitute an admission of liability by the husband. The admission pertained only to the indebtedness incurred by the wife as evidenced by the note.
4. After a judgment becomes final, no further amendment or correction can be made except for clerical errors or mistakes. The amendment sought by plaintiffs was not a correction of a mere clerical error. Changing “defendant” to “defendants” would make the husband (or the conjugal partnership) liable for an obligation for which only the wife had been held answerable, her authority to bind the partnership not having been alleged or proved. Any error in not holding the husband liable based on the answer would be an error of judgment, correctable only by appeal, not by correcting clerical errors.