Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Supreme Court
Manila
- versus -
RESOLUTION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is the Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of Jaime M.
Robles (Robles) seeking to set aside this Court's Decision dated December 4, 2009
which nullified the April 16, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 57417 and the February 27, 2007 Order of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 34 in SP No. IR-1110 and reinstated the August 13,
1999 Amended Decision of the same RTC in the same case.
Robles' Motion is based on the following arguments:
A.) THE HEREIN MOVANT JAIME M. ROBLES, BEING A REAL PARTY-
IN-INTEREST WAS NEVER IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT IN THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI(WITH PRAYER TO CLARIFY JUDGMENT)
DATED MAY 10, 2008 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THIS HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT ON MAY 13, 2008 - - - BY PETITIONER-RENE B.
PASCUAL;
Robles prays for the reversal of the presently assailed Decision and the entry of a
new judgment requiring him to file his comment and memorandum to the petition.
Robles also seeks the reinstatement of the December 15, 1994 Order of the RTC
declaring him as the only forced heir and next of kin of Hermogenes Rodriguez.
For a clearer discussion and resolution of the instant Motion, it bears to restate the
relevant antecedent facts as stated in the assailed Decision of this Court, to wit:
On 14 September 1989, a petition for Declaration of Heirship and Appointment of
Administrator and Settlement of the Estates of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez
(Hermogenes) and Antonio Rodriguez (Antonio) was filed before the RTC
[of Iriga City]. The petition, docketed as Special Proceeding No. IR-1110, was
filed by Henry F. Rodriguez (Henry), Certeza F. Rodriguez (Certeza), and
Rosalina R. Pellosis (Rosalina). Henry, Certeza and Rosalina sought that they be
declared the sole and surviving heirs of the late Antonio Rodriguez and
Hermogenes Rodriguez. They alleged they are the great grandchildren of Antonio
based on the following genealogy: that Henry and Certeza are the surviving
children of Delfin M. Rodriguez (Delfin) who died on 8 February 1981, while
Rosalina is the surviving heir of Consuelo M. Rodriguez (Consuelo); that Delfin
and Consuelo were the heirs of Macario J. Rodriguez (Macario) who died in 1976;
that Macario and Flora Rodriguez were the heirs of Antonio; that Flora died
without an issue in 1960 leaving Macario as her sole heir.
Henry, Certeza and Rosalina's claim to the intestate estate of the late Hermogenes
Rodriguez, a former gobernadorcillo, is based on the following lineage: that
Antonio and Hermogenes were brothers and the latter died in 1910 without issue,
leaving Antonio as his sole heir.
At the initial hearing of the petition on 14 November 1989, nobody opposed the
petition. Having no oppositors to the petition, the RTC entered a general default
against the whole world, except the Republic of the Philippines. After presentation
of proof of compliance with jurisdictional requirements, the RTC allowed Henry,
Certeza and Rosalina to submit evidence before a commissioner in support of the
petition. After evaluating the evidence presented, the commissioner found that
Henry, Certeza and Rosalina are the grandchildren in the direct line of Antonio
and required them to present additional evidence to establish the alleged fraternal
relationship between Antonio and Hermogenes.
Taking its cue from the report of the commissioner, the RTC rendered a Partial
Judgment dated 31 May 1990 declaring Henry, Certeza and Rosalina as heirs in
the direct descending line of the late Antonio, Macario and Delfin and appointing
Henry as regular administrator of the estate of the decedents Delfin, Macario and
Antonio, and as special administrator to the estate of Hermogenes.
Henry filed the bond and took his oath of office as administrator of the subject
estates.
Only the group of Judith Rodriguez had an opposing claim to the estate of
Antonio, while the rest filed opposing claims to the estate of Hermogenes.
On 13 August 1999, the RTC issued an Amended Decision reversing its earlier
finding as to Carola Favila-Santos. This time, the RTC found Carola Favila-
Santos and company not related to the decedent Hermogenes. The RTC further
decreed that Henry, Certeza and Rosalina are the heirs of Hermogenes. The RTC
also re-affirmed its earlier verdict dismissing the oppositions of Jaime Robles,
Victoria Rodriguez, Bienvenido Rodriguez, and Florencia Rodriguez.[2]
Robles then appealed the August 13, 1999 Decision of the RTC by filing a Notice
of Appeal, but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order dated November
22, 1999 for Robles' failure to file a record on appeal.
Robles questioned the denial of his appeal by filing a petition for review
on certiorari with this Court.
In a Resolution dated February 14, 2000, this Court referred the petition to the CA
for consideration and adjudication on the merits on the ground that the said court
has jurisdiction concurrent with this Court and that no special and important reason
was cited for this Court to take cognizance of the said case in the first instance.
On April 16, 2002, the CA rendered judgment annulling the August 13,
1999 Amended Decision of the RTC.
Henry Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and his group moved for the reconsideration of the
CA decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated January 21,
2004. Rodriguez and his co-respondents did not appeal the Decision and
Resolution of the CA.
On the other hand, Robles filed an appeal with this Court assailing a portion of the
CA Decision. On August 1, 2005, this Court issued a Resolution denying the
petition of Robles and, on November 10, 2005, the said Resolution became final
and executory.
On December 4, 2009, this Court rendered the presently assailed Decision which
held as follows:
In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding for settlement of estate, the
period of appeal from any decision or final order rendered therein is 30 days, a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal being required. x x x
xxxx
The appeal period may only be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial
or reconsideration. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal being
perfected, the decision or order becomes final, x x x
xxxx
In the case under consideration, it was on 13 August 1999 that the RTC issued an
Amended Decision. On 12 October 1999, Jaime Robles erroneously filed a notice
of appeal instead of filing a record on appeal. The RTC, in an order dated 22
November 1999, denied this for his failure to file a record on appeal as required
by the Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the
rule; hence, the 13 August 1999 Amended Decision of the RTC lapsed into
finality. It was, therefore, an error for the Court of Appeals to entertain the case
knowing that Jaime Robles' appeal was not perfected and had lapsed into finality.
This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and
within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.
The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating
the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the case. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of
due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. x x x Failure to meet the
requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain
any appeal. There are exceptions to this rule, unfortunately respondents did not
present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule.[3]
In his Comment and Opposition, petitioner contends that Robles has no legal
standing to participate in the instant petition. Petitioner argues that in an original
action for certiorari, the parties are the aggrieved party against the lower court and
the prevailing party. Petitioner claims, however, that Robles was never impleaded,
because he was not the prevailing party in the assailed Decision of the CA as well
as the questioned Order of the RTC. Petitioner further avers that the inclusion of
Robles' name as respondent in the caption of the instant petition was a result of a
clerical error which was probably brought about by numerous cases filed with this
Court involving Robles and the subject estate.
Petitioner admitted in his Comment and Opposition to Robles' Motion that in the
instant petition he filed, only the CA and the RTC were impleaded as respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending,
the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the
petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either
party, the public respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties.
However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear
or participate in the proceedings therein.[4]
In Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[5] this Court ruled as follows:
Based on the foregoing, and in the interest of fair play, the Court finds it proper to
set aside its decision and allow Robles to file his comment on the petition.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 273-274.
[2]
Id. at 228-231.
[3]
Id. at 198-200.
[4]
Emphasis supplied.
[5]
G.R. No. 166302, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA, 591.
[6]
Id. at 595-596.
[7]
Tay Chun Suy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 91004-05, August 20, 1992, 212 SCRA 713, 719.
[8]
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium Vol. I (Sixth Revised Edition), p. 724, citing Amargo v. Court of
Appeals, 53 SCRA 64, 75 (1973).
[9]
Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686, 692; 692; Nocom v. Camerino, G.R. No.
182984, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 390, 413; Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag, G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009,
576 SCRA 70, 88; Pepsico, Inc. v. Emerald Pizza, Inc., G.R. No. 153059, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 58,
67; Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc. v. Tinghil, G.R. No. 159121, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 421, 433.
[10]
Id.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.