51. RENE B. PASCUAL vs. JAIME M.

ROBLES
G.R. No. 182645 December 15, 2010 Peralta, J.

FACTS:
On 14 September 1989, a petition for Declaration of Heirship and Appointment of Administrator and
Settlement of the Estates of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez and Antonio Rodriguez was filed before the RTC of Iriga
City. The petition was filed by Henry F. Rodriguez, Certeza F. Rodriguez, and Rosalina R. Pellosis. Henry, Certeza
and Rosalina they sought to 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 who died on 8 February 1981, while Rosalina is the
surviving heir of Consuelo M. Rodriguez; that Delfin and Consuelo were the heirs of Macario J. Rodriguez 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 nobody opposed the petition. Hence, the
RTC entered a general default against the whole world, except the Republic of the Philippines. Thereafter, 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.
Then, the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment 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 appearance. 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.
The RTC issued an Order 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. Then, 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. Thereafter, RTC issued an Amended Decision reversing its
earlier decision as to Carola Favila-Santos. Robles then appealed the August 13, 1999 Decision of the RTC by filing
a Notice of Appeal, but the same was denied. Thereafter, Robles questioned the denial of his appeal by filing a petition
for review on certiorari with this SC which referred the petition to the CA for consideration. The CA rendered
judgment annulling the Amended Decision of the RTC. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, hence,
this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner made a mistake in failing to implead Robles as respondent.

RULING:
Yes. 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.
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. Similarly, as mentioned above, Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
considers Robles is interested in sustaining the assailed CA Decision, considering that he would benefit from such
judgment. Therefore, his non-inclusion would render the petition for certiorari defective.