COMPLEMENTARY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS DATED DECEMBER 4, 2009 AND JUNE 22, 2011 UPHOLDING THE IMMUTABILITY OF THE AMENDED DECISION IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IR-1110; AND, THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE NEW PRESIDING JUDGE TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME

      The AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999, with CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY dated January 17, 2000 was promulgated by the Honorable Intestate Court, RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, in the case Special Proceedings No. IR-1110: “In the Matter of the Heirship of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et. Al. / For: Heirship, Administratorship, and Settlement of the Estate,”  and since this was long declared as final and executory, the RTC ruling thus became immutable more than seven years ago as held by the RTC in the Order dated February 14, 2007.  

      Paragraph 5, pages 1 up to 2 of the February 14, 2007 RTC Order stressed: xxx"As stated by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases, once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable.  The Court (RTC), in the absence of any supervening events, cannot grant the relief prayed for by the Solicitor General or any of the oppositors in this case, as to do so will undeniably modify or alter the Amended Decision which has long become final and executory.  Moreover, the Solicitor General's standing in Court has been passed upon by this Court in the Amended Decision where he was declared to be not a real party in the proceedings. With more reason that the Solicitor General has no personality to continuously and repeatedly file various motions, comments, objections and opposition."xxx

This February 14, 2007 RTC Order dispositively DENIED all the Comments and Oppositions of the Land Registration Authority and DENR who both vehemently opposed thru the Office of the Solicitor General, as well as that of the other oppositors, including Jaime Robles. 

The Supreme Court, in different Minute Resolutions and Decisions, likewise DENIED or DISMISSED petitions for appeal on certiorari, mandamus and annulment of the said Amended Decision, notably among them the Supreme Court-G.R. No. 140271: Carola Santos, et al vs. Henry Rodriguez, et al, in the Entry of Judgment dated February 22, 2000 for the Resolution dated November 29, 1999; in SC-G.R. No. 142477: Florencia Rodriguez vs. Hon. Lore R. Valencia-Bagalacsa, et.al., in the Entry of Judgment dated September 5, 2000 for the Resolution dated July 31, 2000; and in Supreme Court-G.R. No.140915:Jaime Robles vs. Henry F. Rodriguez, for the Resolution dated March 1, 2004.

      The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 168648:Jaime M. Robles vs. Henry F. Rodriguez, in the Minute Resolution dated August 1, 2005 and Entry of Judgment dated November 10, 2005 issued by the Third Division Clerk of Court, gave finality to the erroneous Court of Appeals Resolution of CA-G.R.SP No.57417 dated April 16, 2002.  But, thereafter, the Supreme Court Third Division, voting as a division (en banc) body with all five (5) Justices concurring in a later case for clarification and certiorari, SC-G.R.182645 in the Decision dated December 4, 2009, the latter ruling superseded and clearly reversed the Minute Resolution and Entry of Judgment of G.R. No. 168648 issued by the Supreme Court Third Division Clerk of Court when the Supreme Court Third Division, as a division body by itself, voted and concurred to nullify the Court of Appeals Resolution together with the RTC Order of February 21, 2007; and, afterwhich, the same Third Division of the Highest Court of the land reinstated the long final and executory RTC Amended Decision, having committed no errors. Then, on June 22, 2011, the Supreme Court Special Third Division, this time voted as a body, promulgating a new Decision, one of the dispositive ruling in it was clearly issued to uphold and complement the December 4, 2009 Decision, and, declared that the void Court of Appeals Decision was unlike the RTC Iriga City Amended Decision since the "instant case" of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 did not show that it falls on any of the only categories of exceptions to the rule of immutability, and since the Amended Decision did not fall on any of the only three categories, having committed no errors, and long lapsed into finality, and categorized as immutable.  

      The SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION, in the case G.R. No.182645: "Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles", the DECISION dated December 4, 2009 REINSTATED the RTC AMENDED DECISION “having committed no errors,” as opposed to the erroneous Court of Appeals G.R.SP No.57417 April 16, 2002 Decision, in the very words of the Supreme Court cited in "Ong vs. PDIC," xxx In "In The Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al, and the Settlement of Their Estates," WE (the Supreme Court) nullified for lack of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of an appeal from the RTC Decision which had already (long) lapsed into finality for failure of the party to file a Record on Appeal within the reglementary period”xxx (cited case in SC-G.R. No. 175116, page 10, paragraph 4).

      Thereafter, in the same case of SC-G.R. No.182645, the Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the Very Urgent Motion of Jaime Robles in the December 15, 2010 Resolution, setting aside the December 4, 2009 Decision as a matter of procedure, to give way to the Robles arguments. Jaime Robles prayed for two things to be granted by the Supreme Court in this case: a)the Supreme Court to set aside the December 4, 2009 Decision so he could submit his comments as an indispensible third party; and, b)to affirm the finality of his Appointment as a forced heir and Judicial Administrator; but his urgent motion was only partly granted, and obviously got the first prayer so he could submit his comments to the Supreme Court; the second prayer was not granted for obvious reasons that he was already declared by the Amended Decision an alleged “sixth” degree collateral descendant and disqualified from being an heir in the presence of nearer ones.  Besides this, and I restate, the Supreme Court already nullified the Court of Appeals Decision for he has not complied with the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement in filing a Record on Appeal.  

     The same  SUPREME COURT SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION, after having received the Comments of respondent Jaime Robles, issued a new DECISION in June 22, 2011 upheld the deposition of the December 4, 2009 Decision which had previously reinstated the RTC Amended Decision.  The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision, in connection with the December 4, 2009 Decision, declared that (December 4, 2009 dispositive portion of decision) the assailed Court of Appeals Decision, being erroneous, was nullified by the Supreme Court and categorized as a void judgment, was (June 22, 2011 dispositive portion of decision) UNLIKE the Amended Decision of RTC Branch 34 Iriga City, the “instant case,” (which had long been final and became immutable having committed no errors) did not show that it fell on any of the (three) enumerated categories (above) which are the only exceptions to the rule of the immutability of final judgments, which are (1)correction of clerical errors, (2)use of so called nunc-pro-tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3)void judgments.  Obviously, the void Court of Appeals Decision fell into this last category.

   That in the same case in SC-G.R. No.182645, Rene Pascual, who filed the Supreme Court petition for certiorari, had raised the issue to the Supreme Court as to which Decision should be implemented: the immutable RTC Amended Decision or the erroneous CA Decision.  The Supreme Court declared that:

“Considering the foregoing, the Court (Supreme Court) finds it no longer necessary to address the issues raised by the petitioner.”  

The “foregoing,” meant that the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court deposition, which declared the long final and executory RTC Amended Decision, having become immutable, and, the erroneous Court of Appeals, having been nullified and thus became a void judgment as elucidated by the Highest Court, found that it was no longer necessary to address the said issues raised by Pascual, for they had long been established already by the RTC Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and thus, Pascual, being an original non-party to the instant case in RTC-Iriga City, was eventually denied and his petition for certiorari dismissed with prejudice;

The first Rene Pascual SC petition in SC-G.R. No.182645 now dismissed with prejudice, his second petition for clarificatory judgment was also met with the same fate and was also denied in the case SC-G.R. No.202999:"Rene Pascual vs. Henry F. Rodriguez and Jaime Robles" in the Resolution dated October 10, 2012, with the Entry of Judgment issued on January 2, 2013;

 The Supreme Court dismissal of the Rene Pascual petition for certiorari in SC-G.R. No.182645 was a technicality, him (Pascual) being an original non-party to the instant case in RTC-Iriga City, but, the Supreme Court June 22, 2011 Decision’s dismissal of the Pascual SC petition for certiorari due to his non-party status in the instant case did not prevent nor limit the Highest Court from ruling and arriving at the meritorious portion, when the Supreme Court declared a favorable deposition for the estate: that of categorizing the long and final RTC Amended Decision as immutable having committed no errors, which was unlike the erroneous and nullified Court of Appeals Decision, which cannot become immutable being a void judgment.  The Supreme Court, in almost all of the cases disposed, always preferred dispositions which cited merits over technicalities, and as such, this ruling validates the Supreme Court disposition when they emphasized a point: xxx"It is true that the judgment of the (trial and appellate) courts in the present case could not bind (the PNB) for the latter is not a party to the case. However, this does not mean that the (trial and appellate) courts are precluded from making findings which are necessary for a just, complete and proper resolution of the issues raised in the present case."- G.R. No.170540: Agatep vs. Rodriguez.

With the Supreme Court having declared to all and having ruled now "with prejudice" against those who still seek to question the immutability of the RTC Amended Decision, it is now ministerial for the RTC Court to reinstate the entire records of the case SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS No. IR-1110, recognize the finality of the Amended Decision, and order the continuance of its execution, Writ and Orders. 

A SHORT BUT SIGNIFICANT SUMMARY OF THE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES ESTATE HISTORY

      As I have discussed this again and again, there was no such thing as OCT #01-4. What was accepted by the then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on February 23, 1976 at Malacanang was the  "Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos of 1826-1861-1891-1894, Royal Decree 01-4" and not an OCT! By virtue of the surrender of the owner's copy for safekeeping of the "Titulo de Propriedad of 1891(Royal Decree 01-4) Protocol, together with the parcels of survey plans duly recorded under Expediente Record Nos. 406-407-408-409 that was submitted under the Court of Land Registration during the Spanish administration, the Spanish title was the only one which has complied under Presidential Decree No. 892, and was considered duly registered under the Phil-American Insular Act #496 - Land Registration Act, known as the Torrens System of land registration, embodied in Presidential Decree No. 1143, and duly reconstituted in the name of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez y Reyes under Transfer Certificate of Title #12022 in 1979 by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.  In 1995, the Court of Appeals admitted as facts of evidence the ownership of the heirs of the late Hermogenes and Antonio Rodriguez under Titulo de Propriedad of 1891 and TCT No. 12022 in CA-G.R. SP No.33806 in the Decision dated June 22, 1995, facts of which were affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Entry of Judgment dated January 15, 1996 for the Resolution dated December 4, 1995 in SC-G.R. No. L-120811.

      Before the surrender of Titulo de Propriedad of 1891 (Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol) in compliance to Presidential Decree #892, sometime way back in 1902, brothers Hermogenes Rodriguez y Reyes  and Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes (NOT MIGUEL, who is a "Juez de Primera Instancia" of Tayabas as per Phil. Archives records, AND WHO IS NOT THE OWNER OF 01-4!) applied for titling under Act #496 some 27,000 hectares of land and was duly issued a Torrens Title - OCT #369, GLRO Decree #297, Case No. 386 - RG #571, promulgated in 1911 by the "Juzgado del Primera Instancia de Manila," later becoming as the "Juzgado del Primera Instancia, Tercera Divicion del Provincia de Rizal" under the Phil-American Insular government. In 1910 Don Hermogenes Rodriguez died, and being without issue, all his landholdings were inherited by Don Antonio Rodriguez. In 1918, Don Antonio Rodriguez died, leaving all his landholdings to his son, Don Macario Rodriguez and daughter Flora Rodriguez. Flora Rodriguez died without issue and all her landholding rights were inherited by Don Macario Rodriguez. Don Macario Rodriguez fathered DELFIN and CONSUELO RODRIGUEZ, who both inherited the landholdings of DON MACARIO. Delfin Rodriguez fathered HENRY and CERTEZA, while Consuelo Rodriguez Pellosis gave birth to a sole daughter, ROSALINA. Thus the three became the true inheritors of the entire HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES ESTATE as proclaimed by SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IR-1110 AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999.

The said RTC Amended Decision was DECLARED FINAL, EXECUTORY and IMMUTABLE that PRECLUDES or PROHIBITS EVEN THE SUPREME COURT from modifying/altering the said judgment in SC-G.R. No. 182645 Decision dated June 22, 2011, with SC Entry of Judgment issued on September 12, 2011.  This RTC Amended Decision was unlike the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No.57417 Resolution dated April 16, 2002, categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT when the said Appellate ruling was NULLIFIED by the December 4, 2009 Supreme Court Decision, since the CA Resolution lacked jurisdiction over the said RTC Amended Decision.