MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, JUEZ DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA OF TAYABAS AND NOT OWNER/CO-OWNER OF ROYAL DECREE 01-4 PROTOCOL

      In April 14, 2008, I wrote a letter to the National Library and Archives Records Management Office to inquire about the records on Miguel Rodriguez if he was owner/co-owner of Royal Decree 01-4 or not.  The Filipiniana Division National Library responded by indicating that Miguel Rodriguez was not recorded as owner of Royal Decree 01-4 but was a "Juez de Primera Instancia" of the District of Tayabas, now Quezon Province.  Herewith is the letter response dated April 17, 2008 of Mr. Narciso J. Cruz, Filipiniana Division, together with the publication on the Gazeta de Manila attached to this net publication as evidence so that all the public would know:







In reality, Miguel Rodriguez (or Miguel Antonio Rodriguez) was never an owner of Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol, contrary to the allegations of several camps who keep on using their ownership traceback from said Miguel Rodriguez.  Miguel Rodriguez de Berriz was not owner but one of the youngest judges (juez) ever to be appointed.  In this publication in the Gazeta de Manila, Miguel Rodriguez (de Berriz) appears in the document of "Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos of 1891, Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol", the District of Tayabas (Distrito de Tayabas) being a portion of the estate under Royal Decree 01-4.  In fact, in the Decision dated April 27, 1999, the Amended Decision dated August 13, 1999 both of the case Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ Y REYES, and NOT MIGUEL, was found and declared as the brother of HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES.  This fact was declared WITHOUT DISPUTE in the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No.182645:Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles.  It was also an admitted fact of evidence in the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 22, 1995 of CA-G.R. SP No.33806 that was upheld by the Supreme Court in the minute Resolution with Entry of Judgment of SC-G.R. No. L-120811 dated December 4, 1995 and January 15, 1996 respectively.

     

GENERAL MEMORANDUM TO ALL ASSIGNEES, SPA HOLDERS AND THOSE WHO INTRODUCE, IMPERSONATE AND SIGN DOCUMENTS PRETENDING TO BE AS HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES ET AL.

      It has come to the attention of the Office of the Court Appointed Administrator, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, that there are people who still continually execute and use the documents of the estate to their unlawful advantage in exchange of pecuniary considerations, issuing Deed of Assignments, Certificates of Occupancy, Deed of Sale, and other forms of property conveyance and sign these documents of conveyance as if they are authorized special administrators of the estate.  THE INTESTATE COURT, RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, in the August 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION that was duly upheld and declared IMMUTABLE by the Supreme Court in the Decision dated June 22, 2011 of the case G.R. No.182645, HAS DULY AUTHORIZED ONLY THE COURT APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, and NOBODY ELSE, to sign these legal instruments.  The Court-appointed Administrator of the estate would also like to make it clear that the Office of Administrator, DOES NOT ISSUE DOCUMENTS that are designed as CERTIFICATES OF TITLES to fool unsuspecting victims.  These documents, HAVE NEVER BEEN AUTHORIZED BY HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ , ARE ALL NULL AND VOID AB INITIO, and DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALUE OF OWNERSHIP AT ALL FOR THEY DO NOT COME FROM THE ESTATE. 

     To REINFORCE this estate memorandum, we are attaching page 2 of the CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY issued on January 17, 2000 by the Honorable Intestate Court to this publication:

      We quote the dispositive portion of paragraph 2 of the Certificate of Finality dated January 17, 2000, to wit:

   xxx"ALL DEEDS OF DONATIONS, TRUSTS, ASSIGNMENTS, SALES WITH PROMISSORY NOTES, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY EXECUTED BY THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATORS, EXCEPT HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, ARE HEREBY DECLARED NULL AND VOID AB INITIO. THE REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR IS DIRECTED TO NOTIFY ALL THIRD PERSONS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NULLITY OF SAID DOCUMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS."xxx

      Relative to the August 13, 1999 Amended Decision, an Order dated September 8, 2000 was issued by the Honorable Intestate Court, and this is clearly instructive and specific to all concerned of the estate properties, stating that:

   xxx"PREMISES CONSIDERED, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, THE MOTION OF COUNSEL IS GRANTED.  ACCORDINGLY, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR IN THIS CASE IS GIVEN SPECIAL AUTHORITY ALONE, TO DISPOSE OF THE REAL PROPERTIES OF THE RODRIGUEZ ESTATE, AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE.xxx"

      This MEMORANDUM is a CLEAR DIRECTIVE TO ALL using the documents of the ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.  Anybody found violating the said COURT ORDERS shall be held IN CONTEMPT and SHALL FACE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SANCTIONS, and immediately SUSPENDED OF ANY AUTHORITY if they have one.

      Likewise, EXTENSIONS OF AUTHORITY / SPA ISSUED TO INDIVIDUALS HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED BY THE INTESTATE COURT NOR THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR.  

      To those who have lost in the case or have been defaulted, the case being "IN REM" or against the whole world, or have never been a part of the heirship but still continually usurp the heirs' rights and issue documents and introduce themselves as so called "Administrators", "Heirs" or alleged to have "conveyed rights" from the estate but in fact ARE NOT, issuances of FAIR WARNINGS ARE NOW GIVEN TO YOU.  If you will not stop usurping the judicial mandate of the true estate heirs, the full authority and weight of the law and of the Courts shall be used to run after againsts these usurpers and pretenders of such authority and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

      This memorandum issued shall be effective immediately to all concerned.

      Please be guided accordingly.

                          OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR,                                                  THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ET AL

         

                                                BY AUTHORITY OF THE INTESTATE COURT

                                                                          HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ

      

JAIME ROBLES' VAIN ATTEMPT TO PERFECT HIS RECORD ON APPEAL TERMINATED AND DECLARED REMOVED FROM THE ROSTER OF PENDING CA CASES, THE COURT OF APPEALS ADMITTING THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE

      I recently scanned the website of the Court of Appeals and lo and behold! I got hold of a new Resolution, which has already become final and executory.  Mr. Henry Rodriguez was never given a copy of such petition for appeal, which was obviously a continuation of Jaime Robles' vain attempt to perfect his appeal by filing a Record on Appeal which had been denied since way back November 22, 1999 by the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City after the RTC Amended Decision of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 was issued on August 13, 1999.  This new petition for appeal of Jaime Robles was DENIED by the Court of Appeals when the Honorable Appellate Court declared that they (the Court of Appeals) HAD NOT ATTAINED JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE.

      The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.100650 Resolution dated July 19, 2013 declared:

     "The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and should be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. The statutory nature of the right to appeal requires the one who avails himself of it to strictly comply with the statutes or rules that are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. In the absence of highly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, like when the loftier demands of substantial justice and equity require the relaxation, or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues, such statutes or rules should remain inviolable.

      In like manner, the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, because the failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court causes the judgment or final order to become final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment or final order. The failure of the movant-appellant and his counsel to file their record on appeal on time rendered the orders of the RTC final and unappealable. Thereby, this Court has lost the jurisdiction to review the challenged orders, and movant-appellant is precluded from assailing the orders.

      

      WHEREFORE, considering that this Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the instant Appeal, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

      Let the records of CA-G.R. CV No. 100650 be dropped from the list of pending cases before this Court.

      SO ORDERED."

    

    

      The dispositive portion of the above Court of Appeals Resolution dated July 19, 2013, declaring that the Honorable Appellate Court had NO JURISDICTION over the Record of Appeal of movant-appellant Jaime Robles was clearly in consonance with the Supreme Court Decision dated June 22, 2011 in G.R. No. 182645- "In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. - Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles," the portion which discussed the rule of immutability of finality of judgments, and categorized the RTC Amended Decision dated August 13, 1999 as immutable and was unlike the previous Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.No.SP57417 dated April 16, 2002 of the same titled case filed by the same movant-appellant Jaime Robles, the previous CA ruling categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT by the Supreme Court since the appellate LACKED OR HAD NO JURISDICTION over the Amended Decision of the RTC instant case.

      With the Court of Appeals admitting that they had no jurisdiction over the above captioned case, and the Supreme Court describing the RTC Amended Decision having lapsed into finality and was categorized as immutable judgment, the present Presiding Judge of RTC Iriga City CANNOT USE ANYMORE the February 21, 2007 Order which previously implemented the April 16, 2002 void CA Decision, both having been declared nullified by the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision.  The RTC judge's role in the above mentioned RTC case is now clearly MINISTERIAL in the implementation and execution of the aforesaid RTC AMENDED DECISION.

AUTHORITY TO CONVEY AND TRANSFER ESTATE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS VESTED BY THE INTESTATE COURT TO THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR ALONE

      The intestate estate proceedings of the brothers the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez y Reyes, Don Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes, et al in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110: For Heirship, Administratorship and Settlement of the Estates of the said decedents which was filed by Mr. Henry F. Rodriguez and his co-heirs with the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Camarines Sur, Branch 34, was issued AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999, and was issued a Certificate of Finality dated January 17, 2000 by the same RTC Branch 34.

      The said intestate Court vested the authority to sign, convey and transfer the estate properties, SOLELY with the Judicial Administrator HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, and this was clearly pronounced in the Court Order dated September 8, 2000 of the said Court.  It clearly vests, cites and declares in the Order that:

      "Premises considered, and in the interest of justice and equity, the motion of counsel is GRANTED.  Accordingly, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, the Court-Appointed Administrator in this case IS GIVEN SPECIAL AUTHORITY ALONE, TO DISPOSE OF THE REAL PROPERTIES OF THE RODRIGUEZ ESTATE, as is necessary for the benefit of the estate.  Mr. Rodriguez is however directed to seek the approval of every disposition of a particular property or properties, for the Court to determine whether or not it will redound to the advantage of the estate.  Otherwise, the Court will revoke the disposition of the properties made.

      "Mr. Rodriguez is directed to strictly comply with this order and the amended decision rendered by this Court.

      SO ORDERED."

      Any sale, assignment or conveyance to any assignee executed by the Court Appointed Administrator has been clearly defined that it is executed to REDOUND mainly the estate, its heirs and their representatives, and they are required by the Court to strictly follow the ORDERS and AMENDED DECISION of the same intestate Court.  The ownership rights derived from the estate of the decendents Hermogenes and Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes were clearly recognized by the Courts and given only to its lawfully declared heirs.  On the other hand, assignees are STRICTLY REQUIRED by the Court to follow its Order to the letter. If they have NOT YET PERFECTED the documents and payment of taxes required, the conveyed rights to them shall strictly be CONDITIONAL and PROVISIONAL, and once they are found to have violated the Orders and put the estate at a disadvantage, or gave no consideration at all, this will REDOUND to a clear REVOCATION of the assignees' conveyed rights as specifically declared and ordered by the Honorable intestate Court.

       The Supreme Court Third Division, in the June 22, 2011 Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645 (and which became final last September 12, 2011), noted that on November 10, 2005, the adverse Court of Appeals April 16, 2002 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.57417, though erroneous, had lapsed into finality by way of the Supreme Court Resolution in G.R. No.168648 dated August 1, 2005.  The effectivity of the finality of the Amended Decision was affected and was deemed of no force and effect until the Supreme Court Third Division pronounced in the December 4, 2009 Decision that the Court of Appeals HAD NO JURISDICTION over the RTC AMENDED DECISION and the instant case, and CA ruling was NULLIFIED together with the RTC Order dated February 21, 2007 that implemented the said void CA decision.  In the same Supreme Court ruling, the AMENDED DECISION was afterwards declared REINSTATED. But it was not until after the June 22, 2011 issued two dispositive pronouncements that the AMENDED DECISION had actually been REINSTATED when this instant case was compared to the void Court of Appeals Decision and categorized as an IMMUTABLE FINAL JUDGMENT.  The RTC Amended Decision had NO FORCE AND EFFECT from November 10, 2005 up to September 12, 2011 until after the Supreme Court issued an Entry of Judgment for the June 22, 2011 Decision. This means that the Heirship and Sole Authority to sign, convey and special power of attorney/authority issued by the Judicial Administrator in between that time (2005 up to 2011 September) clearly had no force and effect when his authority was suspended due to the effects of the CA Decision over the RTC Amended Decision.  Now that the heirship rights and authority to convey and sign of the above Court Order has been fully REINSTATED and declared IMMUTABLE, all conveyances, assignments and authority need to be RENEWED and/or RECONFIRMED.

      The Judicial Administrator Henry F. Rodriguez does not close the doors to those who have been faithful, did not violate the Amended Decision, Orders and agreements with the estate, and who wish to continue with their projects of recovery for the estate.  All they need and are required to do is to write a formal letter the Administrator (via registered mail or via email) if they want to have their projects RENEWED and/or RECONFIRMED together with their MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTS with the estate to comply with the Order of the Court to BENEFIT and REDOUND the estate.  They will also be strictly required to submit reports concerning the progress of their projects and at what stage of the Court Orders were they able to accomplish to justify the continuity of such.     

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.

SUPREME COURT G.R. No. 175116 Jerry Ong vs. Phil. Deposit Insurance Corp. DECISION PENNED BY JUSTICE DIOSDADO PERALTA CITES AS JURISPRUDENCE THE SC-G.R. No. 182645 December 4, 2009 HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ESTATE RULING

      The Honorable Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta, who ruled on the June 22, 2011 Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645: In The Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez / Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles, the Supreme Court Decision which dismissed the petition for certiorari of SC Petitioner Rene Pascual for being an original non-party to the case, uses the December 4, 2009 ruling (SCRA 607 Vol. pages 770-777) of the Intestate Estate in writing a Decision in the Supreme Court case G.R. No.175116: On vs. PDIC, specifically on pages 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Supreme Court Decision.  The said Supreme Court Decision of Justice Peralta had, in effect, together with the categorical declaration of immutability in the June 22, 2011 ruling, upheld the RTC Iriga City Branch 34 AMENDED DECISION in SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS No. IR-1110, when the Supreme Court ruling distinctly discussed thus: 

      xxx"Thus, WE (Supreme Court) find NO ERROR COMMITTED (by the CA) when it sustained the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's appeal for failure to comply with the rules.

               In In the Matter of the Heirship(Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. v. Jaime Robles, WE (The SUPREME COURT) NULLIFIED THE CA DECISION  FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN APPEAL FROM THE RTC DECISION WHICH HAD ALREADY LAPSED INTO FINALITY FOR FAILURE OF THE PARTY TO FILE A RECORD ON APPEAL WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD xxx"

  

     The latter SUPREME COURT DECISION which cites the ruling in the Intestate Estate proceedings case clearly establishes the fact that the RTC Iriga City Branch 34 COMMITED NO ERRORS in the issuance of a Certificate of Finality for the AMENDED DECISION of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, and which was UNLIKE THE COURT OF APPEALS CA-G.R. SP No.57417 Decision dated April 16, 2002, an ERRONEOUS RULING, having no jurisdiction over the RTC Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 Amended Decision when the CA petitioner Jaime Robles did not file the requisite RECORD ON APPEAL which is mandatory and jurisdictional.  Thus the June 22, 2011 Decision of Justice Peralta DID NOT CONFLICT with the December 4, 2009 Decision of now retired Justice Chico-Nazario under the DOCTRINE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, both rulings having gained finality: the December 4, 2009 SC Decision of the Regular Third Division having lapsed into finality and used as jurisprudence more than a year later by SC Justice Peralta and even SC Justice Mendoza in another SC Case: Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Authority both in the year 2010; on the other hand, the SC June 22, 2011 Decision may have dismissed the petition for certiorari of Rene Pascual, but also separately and distinctly discussed that the AMENDED DECISION of the Honorable Intestate Court RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City DID NOT FALL ON ANY OF THE THREE CATEGORIES which classifies the said RTC Amended Decision not falling into any of the three exemptions in the rule of immutability of judgments.  This clearly fortifies and solidly cements the "res judicata" status of the RTC IRIGA CITY AMENDED DECISION.