Whether the dispositive clause of the appellate judgment met the conditions for rectification or interpretation under Article 334 CPC.
The conditions for rectification were not met because the designation contained no manifest error attributable to the court; the wording reflected the court's will.
Article 334 CPC applies only to unclear, contradictory, incomplete, or inconsistent dispositive parts, or where an inadvertent mistake caused the court to state something other than what it intended. Here, the property had always been designated that way, the reasoned judgment confirmed the correction of the street number requested, and any alleged incompleteness was not attributable to the court.