GENERAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE JUDICIALLY APPOINTED ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ THROUGH COURT NOTED ATTY-IN-FACT, RENATO B. GOMEZ, SPEC. PROC. NO. IR-1110

IT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, THAT SOME OPPOSING PARTIES WHO ALREADY LOST OR HAVE BEEN DEFAULTED WITH FINALITY AND NOW UNDER THE RULE ON IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS UNDER 667 PHIL 702(652 SCRA 573-584) G.R.NO.182645, JUNE 22, 2011, THAT THE H. RODRIGUEZ ESTATE IS STILL BEING USED BY SOME GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECT MONEY WITH PROMISES OF GIVING THEM CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY OR DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENTS.  THIS IS A STERN WARNING THAT THE OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR NO LONGER ENGAGES IN THE ISSUANCE OF AFORESAID DOCUMENTS.  WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO SEEK THE HELP OF THE POLICE OR LAWFUL AUTHORITIES TO APPREHEND SAID INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS.

IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE PUBLISHING THIS AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLAIMER/REVOCATION TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.  WE WILL BE PUBLISHING ALSO SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS IN THIS REGARD IN THE COMING DAYS.

WE LIKEWISE INVITE ANYONE WHO FELT TO HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED TO COME FORWARD AND REPORT OF PERSONS WHO USURP THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THIS OFFICE, FOR THIS OFFICE ALONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CONVEYANCES. ANY PERSONS SHOWING AUTHORITY SIGNED BY OTHER PERSONS EXCEPT THIS OFFICE AND NOT  DULY APPROVED BY THE INTESTATE COURT SHOULD REPORT THE MATTER WITH THE NEAREST BARANGAY OR POLICE PRECINCT THAT THESE PERSONS AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES

PLEASE BE GUIDED ACCORDINGLY.

I. ON THE CLAIMS OF VICTORIA MALUBAY PERALTA "AKA" VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ AS ALLEGED SOLE HEIRESS:

        THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT HAVE BOTH DENIED THE PETITIONS FOR APPEAL OF VICTORIA MALUBAY PERALTA TO STOP THIS OFFICE FROM EXECUTING THE ORDERS, WRITS AND PROCESSES OF THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION, SPEC. PROC. NO.IR-1110. WE POST THIS TO ENLIGHTEN ANYONE THAT VICTORIA MALUBAY PERALTA'S CLAIM AS HEIRESS IS DECLARED FALACIOUS BY THE INTESTATE COURT:

SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 28, 2004 IN G.R. NO.163695: VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ VS. HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, THE SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION DENIED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR INJUNCTION FILED BY VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ. ACCORDINGLY, THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL AGAINST HER WAS ENFORCED WITH THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION DECISION THAT DEEMED IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION IN 667 PHIL 702(652 SCRA 573-584) G.R.NO.182645, JUNE 22, 2011, THAT AFFIRMED WITH FINALITY THE RTC ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2007 WHICH DENIED EVEN THE COMMENTS FILED BY THE HON. OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AGAINST HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ.  HERE IS A COPY OF THE JUNE 28, 2004 RESOLUTION AGAINST VICTORIA "BABY" RODRIGUEZ:

(PLEASE SEE OUR POST REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY DATED JANUARY 17, 2000, SPEC. PROC. NO. IR-1110  FOR THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION.)

II. ON CLAIMS OF AUTHORITY BY JAIME F. LOPEZ THAT WAS REVOKED ALREADY AND NOW REITERATED BY THIS OFFICE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLAIMER.

        WE HEREBY PUBLISH THIS DULY EXECUTED AFFIDAVIT OF REVOCATION AND DISCLAIMER FROM THIS OFFICE, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY.  ALL ARE ENJOINED TO READ AND COMPREHEND:

THIS MEMORANDUM INTENDS TO NOTIFY EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS OF CENTRAL LUZON AS WELL AS IN THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA AND TARLAC.

ALL ARE HEREBY ADVISED AND BE GUIDED ACCORDINGLY.  PLEASE TEXT OR CALL MOBILE #09172402893 FOR ANY INQUIRIES AND INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS.

OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR

HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ                                                        RENATO B. GOMEZ

  

 GENERAL MEMORANDUM  FROM THE OFFICE OF THE REGULAR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR, HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ESTATE

SUBJECT: AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLAIMER OF THE HEIR AND REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR, HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ESTATE

DATE: MAY 22, 2024

AS A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW, WE HAVE POSTED THIS AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLAIMER AGAINST THE  FOLLOWING PERSONS WHO WERE NEVER AUTHORIZED TO USE THE DECISIONS AND COURT ORDERS OF THE INTESTATE COURT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE ESTATE AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RTC ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2000, WHICH GIVES SOLE AUTHORITY TO THE COURT APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR TO TRANSFER, CONVEY AND ASSIGN PROPERTIES THAT WERE FOUND BY THE INTESTATE COURT TO BE PART OF THE INVENTORY OF PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE ESTATE.  HERE IS THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLAIMER AGAINST WALTER JIMENEZ AND HIS ASSOCIATES DANILO PABLO AND AURORA SAMSON AND ANY OF THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC:

FOR THE INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE OF ALL CONCERNED WHO MAY HAVE COME INTO CONTACT AND ARE TRANSACTING WITH THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS.

OFFICE OF THE COURT APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR:

MOBILE NO. +63-9172402893

EXCERPTS FROM A CITATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST A JUDGE WHO TRIED TO MODIFY A LONG FINAL JUDGMENT

 O                    Marcos v. Judge Fernando Vil. Pamintuan   A.M. RTJ-07-2062, Jan 18, 2011 

            The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Pamintuan be dismissed from the service with the additional penalty of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the government service, including government owned or controlled corporations, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and for violation of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

o    A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.  Should judgment of lower courts – which may normally be subject to review by higher tribunals – become final and executory before, or without exhaustion of all recourse of appeal, they too become inviolable, impervious to modification.

 

·         Judge Pamintuan was placed under preventive suspension pending resolution of the administrative case to stop him from committing further damage to the judiciary.

·         Judge Pamintuan moved for reconsideration and eventually filed a Motion for Early Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration and to Submit the Case for Decision.

·         Judge Pamintuan then sent a letter requesting for his backpay and benefits covering the period of his preventive suspension - denied for being premature and for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pamintuan is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law

HELD:  Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED from the service.

·         Judge Pamintuan should have realized that the trial court did not rule on that point that the Golden Buddha is fake in its May 30, 1996 Order (even in its September 2, 1996 Order)

·         Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:

o    SECTION 6.  Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

·         The doctrine of immutability and unalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit:

1. to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business
2. to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist

 Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Pamintuan be dismissed from the service with the additional penalty of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the government service, including government owned or controlled corporations, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and for violation of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

o    A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.  Should judgment of lower courts – which may normally be subject to review by higher tribunals – become final and executory before, or without exhaustion of all recourse of appeal, they too become inviolable, impervious to modification. 

·         Judge Pamintuan was placed under preventive suspension pending resolution of the administrative case to stop him from committing further damage to the judiciary.

·         Judge Pamintuan moved for reconsideration and eventually filed a Motion for Early Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration and to Submit the Case for Decision.

·         Judge Pamintuan then sent a letter requesting for his backpay and benefits covering the period of his preventive suspension - denied for being premature and for lack of merit

ISSUE: W/N Judge Pamintuan is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law

HELD:  Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED from the service

·         Judge Pamintuan should have realized that the trial court did not rule on that point that the Golden Buddha is fake in its May 30, 1996 Order (even in its September 2, 1996 Order)

·         Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:

o    SECTION 6.  Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

·         The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit:

1. to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business
2. to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist.

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Pamintuan be dismissed from the service with the additional penalty of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the government service, including government owned or controlled corporations, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and for violation of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

 GENERAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR

DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2023

RE:      INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OF THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ISSUED TO MESSRS.  JOANNA MARIE SALTORRE AND FLORGE A. RALLOS 

SEVERAL PERSONS WROTE LETTERS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ THRU THE UNDERSIGNED, SEEKING CLARIFICATION IF THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS WERE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT, NEGOTIATE AND RECEIVE MONEYS REGARDING PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ 

WE HAVE CALLED THE ATTENTION THRU TEXT AND CHAT SEVERAL TIMES MR. FLORGE A. RALLOS AND HER PARTNER JOANNA MARIE SALTORRE BY ASKING THEM TO MEET UP WITH US TOGETHER WITH THE CONCERNED PERSONS TO CLARIFY THIS, BUT THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY DEFERRED MEETING US TOGETHER WITH THE PERSONS CONCERNED.  IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE TWO, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO ACT IN THIS REGARD AS AFORESAID SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ONLY MEANT TO BE USED TO SECURE CERTIFIED COPIES AND NOTHING MORE.  ANY ACTIONS MADE BY THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS WITH ANY THIRD PARTIES ARE NOT SANCTIONED OR ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ESTATE, AND THEREFORE ANY TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THESE TWO PERSONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ESTATE IN LIGHT OF THESE EVENTS.  

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE RTC ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2000, THE HON. JUDGE BAGALACSA DECLARED THAT ANY CONVEYANCES AND AUTHORITY GIVEN TO ANYONE SHOULD BE DULY NOTED BY THE HONORABLE COURTS REGARDING THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS. ANY TRANSACTION OR AUTHORITY NOT NOTED ARE UNAUTHORIZED AND CANNOT BE GIVEN DUE COURSE, SUCH AS THE LIMITED AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS.

IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND INSULATE THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ESTATE FROM FURTHER ANY ACTS UNSANCTIONED ANY UNKNOWN TO THE ESTATE AND NOT DULY NOTED AND APPROVED BY THE COURTS BY THESE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS, WE ARE THEREFORE PUBLISHING THIS MEMORANDUM SUSPENDING THEIR SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY.  IF THEY WILL TRANSACT WITH ANYONE CONCERNED, WE HEREBY ADVISE ALL CONCERNED TO STOP ANYH TRANSACTION AND SEEK CLEARANCE FIRST WITH US BY POSTING COMMENTS IN THIS MEMORANDUM, TEXT AND/OR CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT  MOBILE NUMBER 09172402893 SO WE CAN RESPOND IMMEDIATELY.

                                      

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR

FOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ:

RENATO B. GOMEZ, DULY SUPREME COURT NOTED ATTY-IN-FACT OF THE ESTATE /MOBILE NO. 0917-2402893

A RENEWED LIFE INJECTED TO THE RODRIGUEZ ESTATE AFTER 

ALMOST TWO YEARS OF COVID RESTRICTIONS

 On December 4, 2018, I wrote a letter-memorandum to the Supreme Court First Division as duly authorized Attorney-in-fact of the Court-appointed administrator HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, complaining about the certifications being made by the present Clerk of Court of origin, declaring the entire records of Spec. Proc. No. IR-1110 expunged by virtue of the RTC Order dated February 21, 2007 in compliance to the April 16, 2002 CA Resolution that declared the proceedings a nullity in its entirety, the present judge and branch clerk utterly disregarding the fact that the SUPREME COURT had already issued two SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - 607 SCRA 770-777, December 4, 2009 and 652 SCRA 573-584, June 22, 2011 that deemed the August 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION, long final and committed no errors, was ordered REINSTATED; and, thereafter, on June 22, 2011, after having declared the April 16, 2002 CA decision NULLIFIED on December 4, 2009 and cited on August 18, 2010, categorically deemed the same CA decision a VOID JUDGMENT, unlike the August 13, 1999 RTC Amended Decision of Spec. Proc. No. IR-1110, the instant case not showing it falls under any of the cited exceptions to the RULE ON IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS, such as (a) correction of clerical error, (b) use of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (c) void judgments - to which the CA decision, for lack of jurisdiction (Canero vs. UP), categorically fell.

A void judgment is no judgment at all in legal contemplation. In Cañero v. University of the Philippines, we held that-

x x x A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there was no judgment. x x x

A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a void judgment. This want of jurisdiction may pertain to lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of one of the parties.

The Supreme Court First Division, after having required me to file my COMPLIANCE to the June 17, 2019 Supreme Court Resolution which I did on August 13, 2019, GRANTED MY PRAYER, AND NO ONE ELSE'S, directing a Sheriff from RTC-OCC Manila to secure certified copies and to have them served to all concerned government agencies and third parties. The Supreme Court, having deemed my memorandum in behalf of the estate to be meritorious, GRANTED my prayer so that, as party representative and assignee of the Rodriguez estate, we will be able to comply SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR 7-96.

At this point, having duly served copies of all related Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Decisions and Orders to the present presiding judge and Clerk of Court RTC Branch 34, Iriga City last December 2021 , and having exhausted all amicable avenues to avoid an administrative approach that may inevitably put strain over their job, I am constrained now to write the Supreme Court Office of the Court Administrator to comply with SC Circular 5-98 which gives the right to resolve pending motions to the judge who long decided the case; if not complied, there is no other recourse but to hold the present presiding judge and his clerk of court with grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law.

On March 15, 2022, the Supreme Court has issued a Resolution that GRANTED my request for all records of certified copies from the Judicial Records Office, Supreme Court, and to have them transmitted to the Land Registration Authority and related government agencies for their information, compliance and guidance.

This also a GENERAL AND PUBLIC NOTICE to one and all involving the real estate properties of the heirs of Rodriguez estate to approach only the authorized persons duly recognized by the Supreme Court involving these properties. If THESE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER INTESTATE COURT and/or SUPREME COURT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2000 THAT ONLY THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, ALONE, TO SIGN ANY DEEDS OF CONVEYANCES OR ASSIGNMENTS, YOU NEED TO STOP IMMEDIATELY dealing with these people to avoid being misled.

BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE ONLY COURT APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, AND DULY NOTED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

COMPLIANCE TO THE JUNE 17, 2019 SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION

     The SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION gave the ENTRY OF JUDGMENT last SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 in SC-G.R.No.142477: Florencia Rodriguez vs. Hon. Lore V. Bagalacsa etc. et al, that DENIED the PETITION for CERTIORARI filed by the late FLORENCIA RODRIGUEZ against the HON. LORE V. BAGALACSA, having committed no errors in the issuance of the RTC Amended Decision as found by the Supreme Court.  The petition administratively alleged of her abuse of discretion in the issuance of the AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION in RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, that favored HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, the Court Appointed Administrator of the estates of the late brothers HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES and ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ Y REYES et al.  Last JUNE 17, 2019, the SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION issued a RESOLUTION which GRANTED the PRAYERS of herein undersigned and duly recognized Attorney-in-fact RENATO B. GOMEZ TO APPOINT MR. MARIO P. VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF IV of RTC-OCC, City of Manila, to SERVE the FINAL and EXECUTORY DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS of the SUPREME COURT, WITH THE CONDITION that the undersigned Attorney-in-fact submit within 5 working days a VERIFIED CERTIFICATION of the DECEMBER 4, 2018 LETTER-MEMORANDUM which the undersigned attorney-in-fact filed with the SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION to seek the help of the Highest Court in the land.

    Having complied the submission, the EFFECTIVITY of the JUNE 17, 2019 is now rendered moot.  Attached as proof is the JUNE 17, 2019 RESOLUTION as well as a scanned copy of the pleadings entitled COMPLIANCE submitted with the SUPREME COURT.

GENERAL MEMORANDUM TO ALL LEGITIMATE SPA HOLDERS AND ASSIGNEES OF THE ESTATE

SERIES OF 2019 - 001

DATE: 03 SEPTEMBER 2019

SUBJECT:   JUDICIAL RECOVERIES AND REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF COURT DOCUMENTS BY LEGITIMATE SPA HOLDERS AND ASSIGNEES

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR HAS INSTRUCTED ALL LEGITIMATE SPA HOLDERS AND ASSIGNEES TO ADDRESS ALL REQUESTS FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF COURT DOCUMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE SUPREME COURT ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS, COURSED THRU BY OFFICIAL LETTER DULY SIGNED BY THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE OVERALL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT RENATO B. GOMEZ.  THIS IS IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFUSION AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE JUDGMENT DIVISION OF THE JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE.

ALL OTHER LAWYERS NOT MADE AS PARTIES OF THE CASES BY THE SUPREME COURT MUST FIRST SEEK THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR AND DULY AUTHENTICATED BY THE OVER-ALL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT.

THE ORDER OF THE HON. LORE V. BAGALACSA THAT ALL SPA'S AND ASSIGNEES WHO HAVE NOT REPORTED ANY PROGRESS FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID ORDER, THEIR AUTHORITY AND DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENTS ARE HEREBY SUSPENDED AND REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN REPORTS ON THE PROGRESS OF THEIR ASSIGNMENTS.  

ALL OTHER MEMORANDA INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ARE HEREBY SUPERSEDED UNLESS   RENEWED, AND A THREE WEEK PUBLICATION WILL IMMEDIATELY  COMMENCE AFTER APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE ORDER DULY ISSUED OFFICIALLY BY THE INTESTATE/PROBATE COURT.

                            OFFICE OF THE HEIR AND COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR

                                                                                 HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ