Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 182645

December 15, 2010

In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez,
Antonio Rodriguez, Macario J. Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez, and Consuelo M. Rodriguez
and Settlement of their Estates,
RENE B. PASCUAL, Petitioner,
vs.
JAIME M. ROBLES, Respondent.
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;
B.) THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 04, 2009 ISSUED BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT IN G.R. NO. 182645 WAS RENDERED BASED ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND
MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 7, 2009, WHOSE COPIES THEREOF WERE NEVER SERVED
UPON THE HEREIN MOVANT;
C.) THE NAME OF HEREIN MOVANT-JAIME M. ROBLES APPEARS AS RESPONDENT IN THE
TITLE OF THIS CASE AS CAPTIONED IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT'S ASSAILED
DECISION DATED DECEMBER 04, 2009. HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE
COMMENT NOR ANSWER TO THE PETITION, A CLEAR VIOLATION TO (sic) THE RULES OF
COURT AND TO (sic) THE CONSTITUTION.
D.) THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS PRESENTED THE SALIENT
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE RELAXATION OF THE RULES ON THE
PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL AND THE RULE THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A
LOST APPEAL. THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS DATED APRIL 16, 2002 HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY BY WAY OF AN ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT ISSUED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT ON NOVEMBER 10, 2005, IN G.R. NO.
168648 ENTITLED JAIME M. ROBLES PETITIONER, VS. HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, ET. AL., AS
RESPONDENTS.1
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.
Subsequently, six groups of oppositors entered their appearances either as a group or
individually, namely:
(1) The group of Judith Rodriguez;
(2) The group of Carola Favila-Santos;
(3) Jaime Robles;
(4) Florencia Rodriguez;
(5) Victoria Rodriguez; and
(6) Bienvenido Rodriguez
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.
In his opposition, Jamie Robles likewise prayed that he be appointed regular administrator to the
estates of Antonio and Hermogenes and be allowed to sell a certain portion of land included in
the estate of Hermogenes covered by OCT No. 12022 located at Barrio Manggahan, Pasig, Rizal.
After hearing on Jamie Robles' application for appointment as regular administrator, the RTC
issued an Order dated 15 December 1994 declaring him to be an heir and next of kin of
decedent Hermogenes and thus qualified to be the administrator. Accordingly, the said order
appointed Jaime Robles as regular administrator of the entire estate of Hermogenes and allowed
him to sell the property covered by OCT No. 12022 located at Barrio Manggahan, Pasig Rizal.

On 27 April 1999, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Carola Favila-Santos and her co-heirs as
heirs in the direct descending line of Hermogenes and reiterated its ruling in the partial judgment
declaring Henry, Certeza and Rosalina as heirs of Antonio. The decision dismissed the
oppositions of Jamie Robles, Victoria Rodriguez, Bienvenido Rodriguez, and Florencia Rodriguez,
for their failure to substantiate their respective claims of heirship to the late 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 May 13, 2008, the instant petition was filed.
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
The basic contention of Robles in the instant Motion is that he is a party-in-interest who stands to
be adversely affected or injured or benefited by the judgment in the instant case. He also argues
that the failure of service upon him of a copy of the instant petition as well as petitioner's
memorandum, and the fact that he was not required or given the opportunity to file his comment
or answer to the said petition nor served with any order, resolution or any other process issued
by this Court in the instant petition, is a clear denial of his right to due process.
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.
The Court finds partial merit in the instant motion.
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.
Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. When the petition filed relates to the acts or
omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person, the petitioner shall join as private respondent or respondents with such public
respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the
proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to
appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public
respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such
proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not
against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or 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:
An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of
an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable
parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case."
Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court
cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even
as to those present.6
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.7 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.8
Petitioner, thus, committed a mistake in failing to implead Robles as respondent.
The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal
of an action.9 The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. 10 Parties may
be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the
action and/or at such times as are just.11 If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party
despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the
plaintiffs/petitioner's failure to comply therewith. 12
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.1avvphi1
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated December
4, 2009 is SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ORDERED to furnish Robles a copy of his petition for certiorari
within a period of five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Thereafter, Robles is DIRECTED to
file his comment on the petition within a period of ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

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