The ruling in Rodriguez v. Caoibes, 49, which the Court reiterated in Philippine Trust Company v. Policarpio, 50 finds relevance in the case at bar. Rodriguez dealt with the incomplete disposition of the trial court in a foreclosure proceeding when it failed to indicate the period within which the judgment obligee should pay.

In resolving the matter, the Court said that the trial court may still amend the incomplete decision despite having attained finality to conform with the rules. The Court also clarified that instead of appealing the incomplete decision, the parties should have merely invited the attention of the court to the flaw in its judgment:

“The case at hand is for the foreclosure of a mortgage. It was tried as such in the Court of First Instance of Batangas and in this court on appeal. In reversing the appealed decision, by an involuntary omission, it was not ordered to deposit the amount of the judgment with the clerk of the court of origin within a period of not less than three months and, in default thereof, to sell the mortgaged properties to pay the mortgage indebtedness and the costs.                                              

“This involuntary omission of an imperative mandate of section 256 of the Code of Civil Procedure, …cannot alter the nature of the action, and the amendment of the decision may be asked to correct the defect, inasmuch as said provision is a necessary part hereof.”

On this point, the American jurisprudence has laid down the following doctrine:

“A judgment or decree of foreclosure may be corrected after its rendition in respect of an error or omission to conform to the court’s intention or the facts of the case.

“If anything has been omitted from the judgment which is necessarily or properly a part of it, and which was intended and understood to be a part of it, but failed to be incorporated in it through the negligence or inadvertence of the court or counsel, or the clerk, the omission may be supplied by an amendment even after the term. 

“Although Rodriguez may have only treated the omission of the period to pay in a judgment of foreclosure, the Court deems it applicable in the instant case. It should be underscored that the essence of Rodriguez lies in the duty of the courts to strictly comply with the required contents of a judgment on foreclosure under Rule 68, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, namely: (1) the amount due and (2) the period to pay the sum within 90 days but no longer than 120 days from entry of judgment. Regardless of whether the omission pertained to either the first or second content or both, as in this case, the required action from the lower court is to amend its prior decision despite its finality by furnishing the missing details pursuant to Rule 68, Section 2. The trial courts should bear in mind that an incomplete decision although having attained finality, is inoperative, ineffectual, and cannot be the subject of execution.

“It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that what can be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision. For this reason, the July 8, 2011 Writ of Execution, which directed the sheriff to require spouses Tiglao to pay PHP 360,000.00 within 120 days from the finality of the February 17, 2011 Decision, is null and void. The Writ of Execution cannot supply the deficiencies of the incomplete Decision.”

The quoted salient part of the decision is from Spouses Rolando Lontoc v. Spouses Roselie Tiglao (G.R. 217860 29 January 2024)