I think there is some confusion caused by the reference to a marginal note and maybe not everybody understands what a marginal note is. Basically, as I understand it now, it's referring back to the titles, the area it's affecting. It doesn't change 153.1. There is no judicial interpretation of titles, or in this case being the same as a marginal note. It's not something a lawyer could use to change an outcome or that a judge would be interpreting. In fact it is impossible: the judicial interpretation act says titles and marginal notes are not part of the jurisprudence.
On November 22nd, 2011. See this statement in context.