FACTS:

The petitioner, Prima Partosa, claimed to be the legal wife of the private respondent, Jose Jo, with whom she had a daughter named Monina Jo. The private respondent admitted to cohabiting with three women and fathering fifteen children, but only the petitioner and their daughter were parties to the case. The petitioner filed a complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property and an earlier action for support against the private respondent. The cases were consolidated and tried jointly. The trial court rendered a decision granting support to the petitioner but did not make a disposition on the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property. The private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling on support and dismissed the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, but only the petitioner's was denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for tardiness. This petition specifically concerns the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property. The petitioner argues that the trial court's decision, although lacking a disposition on the complaint, can still be reviewed due to the ambiguity caused by the omission. The respondent court, however, ordered the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that it should have been called to the trial court's attention for rectification. The petitioner contends that the ruling in the body of the decision should have been considered a sufficient disposition of her complaint. The Supreme Court agrees with the petitioner, stating that while the omission was a technical defect, it should not prevail over substantive justice. The Court resolves to amend the decision and clarify the ambiguity in favor of the petitioner.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the decision of the trial court, which did not include a ruling on the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property, is final and executory.

2. Whether or not the omission in the dispositive portion of the decision can be rectified even after the judgment has become final.

RULING:

1. The decision of the trial court, which did not include a ruling on the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property, is not final and executory. The petitioner should have called the attention of the trial court to the omission so that the proper rectification could be made on time. The petitioner is not precluded from seeking the rectification of the decision since it was the trial court's mistake in not including a ruling on the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property.

2. The omission in the dispositive portion of the decision can be rectified even after the judgment has become final. Where there is an ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion of the decision, the court may clarify such ambiguity by an amendment even after the judgment has become final. In doing so, the court may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties and the findings of fact and the conclusions of law expressed in the body of the decision.

PRINCIPLES:

• The technicality invoked in a case should not be allowed to prevail over considerations of substantive justice.

• Where there is an ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion of the decision, the court may clarify such ambiguity by an amendment even after the judgment has become final.