Non-Litigated Motion

Republic of the PhilippinesREGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Third Judicial Region

Branch 20, Malolos City, BULACAN

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE No. 938–M–98

SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, JOSELITO V. FLORO, ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO and Sps. ALFREDO TRINIDAD & FLORENTINA A. TRINIDAD,

Defendants.x----------------------------------------------------x

IN RE: PETITION TO CANCEL THE ADVERSE CLAIM ANNOTATED ON TCT. NO. T-328106 (M), T-316135 (M), & T-316136 (M)-BULACAN.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., JOSELITO V. FLORO, ROBERT V. FLORO, and SPS. ALFREDO TRINIDAD & FLORENTINA A. TRINIDAD,

Petitioners,

- versus - P – 405 - 98

SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO,

Respondents.x----------------------------------------------------x

Very Urgent Ex-Parte/Non-Litigated Motion (Of Course)To Set Case for Hearing

- with - Prayer for Early Resolution / (Constitutional) Speedy Disposition of these Consolidated Cases

Plaintiff / Petitioner Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., (“Judge

FLORO”, for brevity) by HIMSELF, as litigant, unto this Honorable Court

most respectfully MOVES To Set Cases for Hearing and herein Prays for

Early Resolution / (Constitutional) Speedy Disposition of these

Consolidated Cases, and avers, that:

1. Since these consolidated cases were filed on September, 1998, and

after all the parties filed their respective pleadings, including answers with

counterclaims, and pre-trial briefs with submission of the issues in these

cases, only plaintiff Judge Floro appeared and presented evidence.

2. Despite repeated Orders of the Court, all the defendants, especially

Mariano P. Blanco, never presented any evidence, and the Court on 2004

and 2005, ordered that they were deemed to have waived their right to cross-

examine plaintiff, and that they also waived their rights to present evidence.

3. The Court ordered these cases submitted for decision on 2004 and

2005. However, the Court on 2005 dismissed these cases, after Atty. Nye

Orquillas filed a motion to dismiss for alleged non-payment of docket fees.

The Court later on, reversed its dismissal decision.

4. After several years of delay, Judge Floro, on 2007, filed a CA Writ

of Amparo Case, alleging, inter alia, that a) RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz

refused to decide the cases due to bribery and gross misconduct, that Judge

Floro b) could not have filed an administrative case against her in the SC

since her 4 UP Class ’62 classmates would not, for sure, entertain Judge

Floro’s pleas. After about 7 CA Justices’ Inhibition, the CA, through Justice

Rey Sundiam, whose office was fully burned later on and he thereafter died

on February, 2008, dismissed the Amparo case, ruling that Judge Floro

should have rather filed an administrative case against Judge Thelma and

Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson.

5. Because of these pains, Judge Floro repeatedly complained to

Executive Judge Petrita B. Dime, and begged her from 2005 to 2006 to order

Judge Thelma to decide the case. Instead of listening, Judge Dime flew to

Egypt, and forthwith granted Judge Thelma’s inhibition-re-raffle order.

Judge Floro, forthwith appealed to the Executive Judges’ Offices (Pasamba

and Francisco); and thus, Judge Thelma was ordered to resolve the incidents.

But Judge Thelma wrote the OCAD and asked for extension of time to

decide, citing the filed 350 pages OCA IPI admin. case filed by Judge Floro

against her as reason to inhibit, and against Judge Floro’s repeated

objections.

- Page 2 -

6. The Supreme Court, in the meantime, through Judge Floro’s

classmate, seat mate from 1978-1982, Antonieta Articona Brion’s husband

Arturo D. Brion, removed with Finality, Judge Floro from judicial service

due to dwarf consultation, on June 3, 2008; thereafter, jobless Judge Floro

was ruled with finality by the same Justice Brion, to have lost his 350 pages

OCA IPI case against Judge Thelma, due to lack of substantial evidence to

convict her. Justice Brion ordered the re-raffle of the case.

7. LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that, after protracted proceedings by

Judge Thelma, she ruled on September 3, 2008, that Judge Floro’s Motion

for Reconsideration and all pending incidents are held in abeyance, as she

ruled that all these consolidated cases are again [as she ordered these cases

submitted for decision on 2004 and 2005] deemed SUBMITTED for

DECISION against all defendants, Atty. R G Villarico and all parties except

against the Trinidads (the dismissed supplemental complaint of Judge Floro;

but the Trinidad’s petition to cancel adverse claim is also deemed submitted

for judgment).

8. Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, which handled the LRC case on September,

1998 and later had it consolidated with Br. 80, RTC, under Judge Casanova,

received the case via re-raffle on February 1, 2010. Despite several follow-

ups, Judge Francisco heard the case on May, 2010. At the hearing, Judge

Floro repeatedly stated that he has full trust and confidence on the Judge,

and therefore, Judge Francisco set the cases for hearing as agreed upon by

the parties, on June 29 and July 15, 2010.

9. Judge Francisco ruled that Judge Floro and Atty. Guardiano for

defendants were granted the right to expound articulate and elaborate on

their positions on the issues at the set hearings. However, Judge Francisco,

surprisingly inhibited per Order of May 21, 2010.

10. Judge Floro manifests that he lost his job since July 20, 1999 and

he lost his property rights upon his only ancestral house and lot-home where

he grew and lived from 1953-1989 (subject of these cases), for 12 years

since 1998.

11. It is understandable that the Court is equally burdened with many

important cases. However, these cases are extraordinary in character, and the

- Page 3 -

entire Judiciary, since 1901, never ever had a case, that has undergone

similar pains. Ergo, Judge Floro a) invokes his Constitutional right to

speedy disposition of these cases, b) manifests that he has full trust and

confidence on the Presiding Judge, and c) it is Judge Floro’s only plea that

these cases be decided speedily, and he be granted 30 minutes (as he and

Atty. Guardiano for defendants were granted the right) to expound, articulate

and elaborate on their positions on the issues at the hearings to be set.

12. The Court will lessen the pains that Judge Floro would bear, if it

would decide the case before any possible promotion to the CA, etc., since,

if these cases reach the CA and especially the Supreme Court, Judge Floro,

would, in the end, speedily and without further delay, suffer the same fate

that he suffered when he both lost his job and the counterpart of these cases,

the administrative case. “Kung matatalo rin po ako sa SC, sana po, para

hindi na ako magdusa pa, maDesisyonan na itong Kasong ito po. Ganun din

lang ang mangyayari.”

RELIEF

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed to this

Honorable Court, that the instant –

Very Urgent Ex-Parte/Non-Litigated Motion (Of Course)To Set Case for Hearing

- with - Prayer for Early Resolution / (Constitutional) Speedy Disposition of these Consolidated Cases

-- be granted, and these cases be set for hearing on at least 3 different trial

dates. It is specifically prayed that Judge Floro and all the parties, through

their counsel be granted 30 minutes (as he and Atty. Guardiano for

defendants were granted the right by Judge Francisco) to expound, articulate

and elaborate on their positions on the issues the hearings to be set.

Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.

Malolos City, Bulacan, for Manila, July 20, 2010.

- Page 4 -

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Plaintiff/Petitioner,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN, [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60,

Book No. XIV]

NOTICE OF HEARING

TO: The Branch Clerk of Court, Br. 20, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

Defendants, Respondents –Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,Counsel of Record for LRC Petitioners Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad,

Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano, for defendants SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO,

JOSELITO V. FLORO, Robert V.Floro,

ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO,

The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan, c/o ______________, Public Respondent, nominal part party, and - The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, MEYC., BULACAN, Public Respondent, Nominal Party.

Please take NOTICE that undersigned will submit the instant EX-PARTE MANIFESTATION - PLEADING for the consideration / resolution of the Court on July 21, Wednesday, and it is not for any reason heard, then on July 23, Friday 2010, July27, 28 and 30, 2010 all at 9:00a.m to 10:00 a.m. or soon thereafter; Please CALENDAR the same immediately upon receipt, in view of the urgency of the matter. This a Very Urgent Ex-Parte/Non-Litigated Motion (Of Course) and not a litigated MOTION that requires the 3-day notice RULE. Note: Undersigned attaches Court documents collectively marked as Annex A hereof for the Courts easy reference.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner/Plaintiff

COPY FURNISHED:

By Personal Service:

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,Counsel of Record for co-petitioners/defendants Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, 2nd Flr., Capitol Compound Office, Malolos City, Bulacan,

The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan, c/o _______________,Public Respondent, nominal part party, and

- Page 5 -

JOSELITO V. FLORO and Robert V. Floro,Defendants, Malolos City, and Calvario, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan, respectively.

By Registered Mail with return card:

EXPLANATION: Due to distance and lack of messenger, service was made by registered mail with return card, with receipts attached hereunder upon:

Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano, Counsel for SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, defendants,Gasak, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO,Defendants,Villarico Law Office,Poblacion, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, Pandayan, MEYCAUAYAN, 3020 BULACAN,c/o The Municipal Trial Court of Marilao, Bulacan,Marilao, BulacanPublic Respondent, Nominal Party.

- Page 6 -

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,2nd Flr., Hiyas Convention Center, Capitol Compound Office, Malolos City, Bulacan,

The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan

JOSELITO V. FLORO and Robert V. Floro,Defendants, Malolos City, and Calvario, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan, respectively.

Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano, Gasak, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO,Villarico Law Office,Poblacion, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, Pandayan, MEYCAUAYAN, 3020 BULACAN,

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,






- Page 7 -

DECISION / Cancellation of Adverse Claim on the subject 2 titles

of the three involved in T-316135 (M), & T-316136 (M)-BULACAN this

suit, and states, that:

NO OPPOSITION WHATSOEVER WAS FILLED TO CHALLENGE THE OMNIBUS MOTIONS (DESPITE THE COURT’S ORDER); NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER PRESENTED BY DEFENDANTS SINCE THESE CASES WERE FILED, UNTIL TODAY.

1. At the May 29, 2007 hearing of the subject

OMNIBUS MOTIONS dated 22 June, 2007, all

defendants failed to appear despite due notice; the

Court, therefore, gave them 5 days to file

comments/oppositions thereto, as it ordered that:

“xxx thereafter, the pending incidents will be deemed

submitted for resolution.” (Annex “A” hereof).

- Page 8 -

2. The process server of this Court duly served the

said Order upon all defendants, through their

counsels, on May 31 /June 1, 2007, as evidenced

by the RETURN OF SERVICE dated June 1, 2007

(Annex “B” hereof). Accordingly, defendants had

until June 6, 2007, to file th e required pleadings .

But until today, defendants never filed any

pleading/OPPOSITION to plaintiff’s OMINIBUS

MOTIONS.

3. The mailing clerk of this Court also mailed the

Order of the Court to Mr. Mariano P. Blanco and

his counsel, Atty. Donato Mabbayad, # 14, on June

1, 2007 as evidenced by the mailing paper, # 8

(Annex “C” hereof).

4. On June 4, 2007, defendant Mariano P. Blanco

filed the WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE of

his counsel, Atty. Donato Mabayad, dated April 12,

2007; the Court NOTED said pleading, and “the

defendants are hereby required to secure the services

of a new counsel to represent them in the aforesaid

cases.” (Annex “D” hereof). The Order was mailed

by the clerk to defendants Rodel Gil Villarico,

Mariano P. Blanco and Atty. Donato Mabbayad, on

June 13, 2007 (as evidenced by the mailing paper, #

866, 867 & 868, Annex “E” hereof).

5. Considering that the ORDER of the Court to file

OPPOSITION was not obeyed, and since the same

was binding upon defendants, more specifically,

upon Mr. Blanco, even if his counsel withdrew, as

he was notified thereof (since the Orders were

mailed to him by the Court per the clerk on June 1

- Page 9 -

and June 13, respectively), ergo, the instant

OMNIBUS MOTIONS, per force, with all due

respect, must accordingly be GRANTED, as a

matter of course, and on the merits thereof.

NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER PRESENTED BY DEFENDANTS SINCE THESE CASES WERE FILED, UNTIL TODAY.

STRIPPED of unessential details, the instant consolidated cases are simple.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION/CIVIL CASE NO. 938-M-98.

On September 30, 1998, petitioner Judge FLORO filed

the first case against respondents spouses MARIANO P.

BLANCO, the Provincial Prosecutor, and Br. 1, MTC,

Meycauayan, Bulacan Judge Orlando PAGUIO (now retired

and replaced by Judge CEDILLO). In essence, petitioner Judge

FLORO asked the Court to grant him the following RELIEFS:

a.) Declaring the subject real estate mortgage (dated 5

January, 1995, admitted Exhibits B/B-1, ANNEX B/B-1

of the Petition) between Milagros FLORO, mother of

Judge Floro, Joselito FLORO, his brother & defendants

BLANCOS, null and void; consequently, to declare the

subject 3 titles (ANNEXES/EXHIBITS F, D-1, & D-2)

quiet/clean and free, and at the same time, to

cancel/annul the annotated adverse claim by the

defendants BLANCOS therein;

b.) Declaring null and void the subpoena, warrant of arrest,

and permanently ENJOINING respondents Provincial

Prosecutor & MTC, Br. 1, Meycauayan, BULACAN, from

continuing with, and to DISMISS with finality/with

- Page 10 -

prejudice, the counterpart CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98-

27027 against Judge FLORO, INTER ALIA.

Petitioner Judge FLORO also filed additional pleadings which

included/added as co-defendants, ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO &

JOSELITO V. FLORO. Later, petitioner Judge FLORO, in accordance with

the Rules, filed the AMENDED COMPLAINT on October 9, 1998 (pages

123-132, records).

After the filing of responsive pleadings by adverse

parties, the case was set for pre-trials and trials. The case

was later heard by BR. 80, RTC, Malolos, BULACAN. The

case dragged for more than 4 years, since the parties

exerted all efforts to amicably settle the case, but the efforts

failed.

N. B. Per Order dated April 26, 1999, Br. 9, RTC Judge

Masadao INHIBITED himself and transmitted this case to Br.

80, RTC, Malolos.

LRC CASE NO. P-405-98.

The counterpart LRC case was filed by petitioner Judge

FLORO on September 28, 1998. It prayed for the cancellation

of the annotated ADVERSE CLAIM of respondents BLANCOS

at the back of the subject titles (ANNEXES/EXHIBITS F/F-1,

D-1 & D-2).

The case was set for INITIAL HEARING on December 8, 1998; the

petitioner Judge FLORO marked in evidence ANNEXES A to I of the

petition as EXHIBITS A to I, thereby complying with/submitting the

JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. (TSN dated 8 December, 1998, pp.

1 – 7).

On March 4, 1999, petitioner Judge FLORO testified on DIRECT

EXAMINATION (TSN dated 4 March 1999, pp. 3 – 31).

- Page 11 -

THE CRITICAL FACT ---

On May 11, 1999, both parties through their counsels, in obedience to

the ORDER of the Court dated 21, April 1999 (Vide: TSN dated 21 April

1999, pp. 2-22) duly SUBMITTED the signed “JOINT STIPULATION OF

FACTS & MEMORANDUM”, 3 pages; while Atty. Rafael Santos, Jr.,

counsel of record of the respondents BLANCOS duly filed his COMMENT

thereto on even date, May 11, 1999.

On May 25, 1999, Br. 19, RTC, acting upon the JOINT MOTION

FOR CONSOLIDATION, ordered the CONSOLIDATION of this case with

CIV. CASE No. 938-M-98, Br. 80, RTC, Malolos.

CONSOLIDATED CASES NOS. 938-M-98 & P-405-98 :

Pursuant to A.M. No. 03-9-537, Br. 80, RTC was made a drugs court, and

thus, these cases were re-raffled to BRS. 15 & 16; however, due to the fact

that these cases were consolidated and could not be split, Br. 15 issued an

Order dated 23, January 2004, transmitting its case to Br. 16; hence, these

two consolidated cases are now pending at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos.

RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS

In the order dated March 19, 1999, the Court declared

defendant Joselito V. FLoro in DEFAULT for failure to file

answer. Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, defendant, was formerly

represented by Atty. Ernesto P. Fernandez; the latter

withdrew and was allowed by the Court (Br. 16, RTC,

Malolos, Bulacan) to be substituted by Atty. Donato

Mabbayad***, who represented all defendants/respondents

as their counsel of record; Atty. Villarico filed the pre-trial

brief and his ANSWER on December 10, 1998. *** Atty.

DONATO MABBAYAD formally entered his appearance

as counsel of record for all defendants ( substituting the

- Page 12 -

deceased Atty. Rafael Santos) , at the hearing of August 26,

2002 ( pp. 359-361 records ).

On October 19, 1998, public respondent provincial prosecutor filed

his ANSWER/COMMENT/OPPOSITION.

PRE-TRIAL/TRIAL

The pre-trial was conducted and was TERMINATED per Order dated

5 February, 2004. Atty. Ernesto Fernandez manifested that he withdrew

for client, defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, while Atty. DONATO

MABBAYAD manifested in open court that he is appearing for ALL

DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS. The Court approved the

withdrawal and substitution. Atty. Mabbayad/ defendants failed to

appear at the hearing of March 4, 2004, despite due notice (of the Order

personally served by the process server).

The Court set the trials and plaintiff Judge FLORO finished his direct

testimony on March 25, 2004. Atty. Sinfronio BARRANCO manifested

that he is REPRODUCING Judge FLORO’s entire testimony/evidences

in P-405-98 in the consolidated CIV. Case # 938-M-98; Judge FLORO’s

additional DIRECT testimony was offered and received by the Court

(TSN dated 25 March, 2004, pp. 1-5).

Defendants/respondents/their counsel of record, Atty. Donato

MABBAYAD failed to cross-examine plaintiff Judge FLORO despite

the Court’s orders and personal services thereof. (Vide: Court orders

dated 25 March & 17 June 2004, which were duly served upon them by process

server LEO B. EBINA, by personal services). At the hearing of May 13,

2004, defendants/counsel also failed to appear despite due notice.

At the hearing dated 17 June, 2004, per manifestation and request of

plaintiff Judge FLORO, through his counsel, Atty. Barranco, that since

Judge FLORO, as counsel of record of co-petitioners spouses ALFREDO &

FLORENTINA TRINIDAD, was appointed Judge as of November 4, 1998

- Page 13 -

(hence their lawyer-client relationship was deemed terminated by law), the

Court ordered them to appear at the hearings and to hire services of counsel.

(Vide: RETURN of service by process server LEO B. EBINA, dated June

23, 2004). Defendants/counsel also failed to appear at the hearing of July

29, 2004 (Vide: RETURNS of SERVICES dated August 9 & 11, 2004).

At the hearing dated 12 August 2004, the Court granted plaintiff

Judge FLORO’s counsel’s oral motion for leave to file

supplemental/appropriate pleading (cross-claim, etc.) against his co-

petitioners spouses TRINIDADS concerning admitted ANNEX H of the

petition, the KASUNDUAN; the Court also ordered that the right of

defendants to cross-examine Judge FLORO was deemed waived due to

consistent failure on their part/counsel to appear at the trials, despite due

notice. The court set the hearings for the reception of defendants’ evidence

on September 13, 22, October 6 & 18, 2004. Exhibits A-8 & A-8-1, the 4

pages MANIFESTATION/ LETTER NOTICE dated July 21, 1993, with the

registry receipts (both ORIGINALS) were marked and attached to the

records. (This Order was duly served upon defendants through counsel Atty.

Donato Mabbayad & to the spouses TRINIDADS, both by personal service

of LEO B. EBINA, process server; vide – return of personal service dated 6

September, 2004).

At the hearing dated 13 September, 2004, the Court: a) ADMITTED

plaintiff’s (all) EXHIBITS A to I / sub-markings, for the purposes they were

offered; and plaintiff Judge FLORO rested his case; b) ordered the initial

presentation of respondents’/defendants’ evidence on September 22, October

6 and 18, 2004; and c) ordered spouses TRINIDADS to engage the services

of counsel and to appear at the scheduled hearings. (This order dated 13

September, 2004, was personally served by LEO B. EBINA on

defendants/counsel, ATTY. D. MABBAYAD & the TRINIDADS; vide return

dated 20 September, 2004). (Vide: also TSNs dated 25 March, 2004, pp. 1-5;

dated 12 August, 2004, pp. 1-3 & dated 13 September, 2004, pp. 1-4).

- Page 14 -

Consolidated cases ordered submitted for partial / several judgment on

September 22, 2004 (Secs. 3 & 4, Rule 36, Rules of Court ):

At the hearing dated 22 September, 2004, the Court: a) ordered the case

against all defendants/respondents deemed submitted for partial judgment and

that they have deemed waived their right to present evidence, due to

their consistent failure to appear at the hearings despite due notices.

REPRODUCED HEREUNDER are parts of the OMNIBUS

MOTIONS, for reference purposes:

SUPERVENING EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION (AND RESULTANT MOOT AND ACADEMIC ) OF THE LOAN & MORTGAGE / ADVERSE CLAIM UPON THE SUBJECT TORRENS TITLES .

A.On January 5, 1995 defendants Joselito Floro (and deceased

Milagros Floro) and spouses BLANCOS entered into a principal written

contract of LOAN and/with accessory REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

contract where the subject lots, covered by the subject titles [T-316135 (M),

& T-316136 (M)-BULACAN, inter alia] of this case (from the cancelled

mother title) was/were encumbered by said respondents, using the co-

owners title; the OWNERS duplicate certificates of titles were and are

possessed by petitioner; (ADMITTED EXHIBITS, ANNEXES A, A-1, A-2

hereof, for reference).

B. The term of payment thereof is one year, thus, until January 6,

1996; the actions to foreclose the loan and/or to collect the sums of money

due on that date accrued from that critical date of January 6, 1996; BUT

RESPONDENTS slept on their rights: respondents BLANCOS never filed

any action to collect the loan and/or to foreclose the mortgage until today,

until January 7, 2006; hence, the LOAN and MORTGAGE as written

principal and accessory obligations and contracts, PRESCRIBED due to

EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTIONS on January 7, 2006; PRESCRIPTION

legally CONVERTED the loan, contract and the lien of adverse claim

MOOT and ACADEMIC, that is – IT LEGALLY EXTINGUISHED

- Page 15 -

THEM by operation of law; and NECESITATING NO DECLARATION

FROM ANY COURT, IPSO FACTO, or by sheer PRONOUNCEMENT

OF CIVIL LAW, specifically –

Articles 1106, 1139, 1142, 1150, 1144, inter alia,

THE LOAN, THE MORTGAGE and THE ADVERSE CLAIM LIENS

WERE DULY EXTINGUISHED ON JANUARY 7, 2007, LEAVING

NOTHING BUT THE MINISTERIAL TWIN DUTIES OF THIS COURT

TO i) CANCEL THE ANNOTATED LIENS ON THE SUBJECT TITLES,

AND ii) TO PERMANENTLY ENJOIN / DISMISS THE CRIMINAL

CASE AGAINST MOVANT / Joselito Floro.

C.On September 7, 2005, this Court issued an INTERLOCUTORY

Reconsideration Resolution which ruled that Petitioner /movant, in the

interest of substantial justice, should be allowed to pay the required

ADDITIONAL docket fees for the cancellation of mortgage due to the filing

of amended complaint, within a reasonable time; movant received copy of

the same, on October 10, 2006, which is not a final decision but a mere

interlocutory order under Rule 36, of the Rules of Court (which defined

decision or final judgment as that which finally settles a suit or controversy

leaving nothing to be ruled upon), considering that the Court has yet to rule

upon the adverse claim cancellation etc.

D.Considering that petitioner / movant DULY PAID all the required

legal, filing and docket fees for the LRC P – 405 - 98 case, and for the

special civil action with INJUNCTION case - CIVIL CASE No. 938–M–98,

JURISPRUDENCE is settled on the matter, that when jurisdiction attaches /

attached upon the full payment of legal, filing and docket fees and the timely

filing of the pleadings, then, the subsequent amendment thereof or even the

non-payment of the required additional fees, can and will never oust the

court of jurisdiction it once acquired.

E. When the subject loan, mortgage and annotated adverse claims

were LEGALLY EXTINGUISHED by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION on

- Page 16 -

January 7, 2006, ergo, the amended and supplemental pleading admitted by

the Court which required payment of additional fees (contested by movant at

that time), became LEGALLY MOOT AND ACADEMIC, for the Court

cannot legally annul or declare void or voidable, the principal contract of

loan, the accessory real estate mortgage contract, and the real right of

annotated adverse claim on the subject titles, which are and were legally

EXTINCT: in other words, MOOT and ACADEMIC. To be clearer, movant

states with legal certainty that the subjects of this suit – LOAN,

MORTGAGE and ADVERSE CLAIM - prescribed, had been legally

extinguished by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION, and the filed amended

pleading to cancel the mortgage was LEGALLY converted on January 7,

2006, into a MOOT and ACADEMIC complaint; the COURT cannot

anymore rule on moot and academic cases and accordingly the Clerk of

Court or this Court can no longer require payment of any docket, filing or

additional legal fees to cancel academically an EXTINCT loan, mortgage as

extinguished contracts and the moot adverse claim liens.

RELIEF

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed to this

Honorable Court, that after due notice and hearing, judgment /

RESOLUTION be rendered / promulgated:

1) DIRECTING THE REGISTER / DEPUTY / BRANCH

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN TO

CANCEL THE ANNOTATED ADVERSE CLAIMS ON T-316135

(M), & T-316136 (M)-BULACAN, AND DECLARING THESE

TITLES FREE FROM ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES,

and

2) TO DIRECT PUBLIC RESPONDENT MTC, BR. I, JUDGE TO

PERMANENTLY CEASE AND DESIST FROM PROCEEDING

WITH THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST PETITIONER

- Page 17 -

JUDGE FLORO AND TO FORTHWITH DISMISS THE SAME

WITH PREJUDICE.

Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.

Malolos City, Bulacan, for Manila, June 25, 2007.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Movant/Petitioner-in-intervention,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; (Presiding Judge, Branch 73, RTC, MALABON, NCJR, M.M.)

[I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV (Note: Motion For Leave to Admit 4th Appeal to be reinstated is pending.]

NOTICE OF HEARING

TO: The Branch Clerk of Court, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

Respondents –Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,Counsel of Record for defendants Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad,

SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, JOSELITO V. FLORO, ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO,

The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan, c/o Fiscal B. Medrano, Public Respondent, nominal part party, and - The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, MEYC., BULACAN, Public Respondent, Nominal Party.

Please take NOTICE that undersigned will submit the instant EX-PARTE MANIFESTATION - PLEADING for the consideration / resolution of the Court on June 28 & July 3, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. or soon thereafter; Please CALENDAR the same immediately upon receipt, in view of the urgency of the matter. This an EX-PARTE MANIFESTATION and not a MOTION that requires the 3-day notice RULE.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner/Movant

COPY FURNISHED:

By Personal Service:

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,Counsel of Record for co-petitioners/defendants Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, 2nd Flr., Capitol Compound Office, Malolos City, Bulacan,

- Page 18 -

The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan, c/o Fiscal B. Medrano,Public Respondent, nominal part party, and

JOSELITO V. FLORO, Defendant, Calvario, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

___________________

By Registered Mail with return card:

EXPLANATION: Due to distance and lack of messenger, service was made by registered mail with return card, with receipts attached hereunder upon:

SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, defendants,# 63 Bancal, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO,Defendants,Villarico Law Office,Poblacion, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, Poblacion, MEYCAUAYAN, 3020 BULACAN,Public Respondent, Nominal Party.

- Page 19 -

Documents

Non-Litigated Motion