G.R. No. 182645, December 15, 2010
Rene Pascual, petitioner
vs Jaime Robles, respondent
Ponente: Peralta
Facts:
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 heir and next of kin of
Hermogenes Rodriguez.
September 14, 1989, a petition for declaration of
heirship and appointment of administrator was filed before the RTC of Iriga
City. It was filed by the Rodriguez' claiming that they are the sole and
surviving heirs of late Antonio Rodriguez and Hermogenes Rodriguez.
In the initial hearing of the claim, nobody opposed the
petition, so RTC allowed them to submit evidence in support of their claim. RTC
rendered partial judgment declaring Henry and Rosalina as heirs, Henry as
administrator. Henry then filed a bond and took his oath of office as
administrator of the estates.
Then, 6 groups of oppositors entered their appearance.
Among which is Robles, praying that he be appointed regular administrator to
the estates and be allowed to sell a certain portion of the land in Pasig.
After hearing on Robles' application, RTC declared him heir and thus qualified
to be administrator.
On April 27, 1999, the RTC declared some oppositors
co-heirs and reiterated its partial judgment of that of Henry and Rosalina. The
decision dismissed the oppositions of Robles and Rodriguez for their failure to
substantiate their claims.
August 13, 1999, RTC then reversed its decision on the
co-heirs. Robles then appealed by filing a notice of appeal but the same was
denied by the RTC. Robles questioned the denial of his appeal by filing a
petition for review on certiorari with SC. SC referred the petition to CA for
consideration of the merits on the ground that the said court has jurisdiction
concurrent to take cognizance of the said case. CA annulled the amended RTC
decision. An instant petition was later filed assailing the decision of the SC
on the notice of appeal and record on appeal against Robles.
Held:
In the case at bar, Robles is an indispensable party. He
stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of the petition. He has an
interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect his
rights, such that the courts cannot proceed without his presence. Moreover, as
provided for under the aforequoted Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
Robles is interested in sustaining the assailed CA Decision, considering that
he would benefit from such judgment. As such, his non-inclusion would render
the petition for certiorari defective.
Petitioner, thus, committed a mistake in failing to
implead Robles as respondent.
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.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTLY
GRANTED.
Jaime Robles was an indispensable party, being an oppositor in the RTC, while Rene Pascual was only a third party, who directly filed with the Supreme Court to ask if the property he acquired from Henry Rodriguez was valid since the sale he contracted from Henry Rodriguez was affirmed by the RTC, only to find out that the entire RTC case was nullified by the CA. In June 22, 2011, the Supreme Court in the same case dismissed the petition of Rene Pascual, for two reasons: first, Pascual was a non/third party, who cannot be allowed to directly petition with the Supreme Court since he was not a party to the RTC or CA; and second, the Supreme Court, in this case, was already precluded from modifying the RTC Amended Decision that committed no errors, lapsed into finality, and had already become immutable and unalterable, as opposed to the CA Resolution April 16, 2002, that had also become final and executory but fell on the third category of exceptions, being a void judgment, unlike the August 13, 1999 RTC Amended Decision. The Court of Appeals admitted in CA CV No.100650 dated July 19, 2013 that they are also precluded from taking jurisdiction of the Robles appeal, Robles not having complied the mandatory and jurisdictional Record on Appeal under Rule 41 Section 2 not only once but twice. In fact, the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City already disapproved his appeal even way back on Nov.22, 1999, and second on June 11, 2013. The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision gave the RTC Amended Decision rest and entered into the maxim of stare decisis, et non quieta de movere.
ReplyDeleteAnglo Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et … Wikipedia
ReplyDelete