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.