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.