G.R. No. 182434 - Tomawis vs. Balindong

Victoriano Bulacan, the plaintiff-appellee, filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with a preliminary mandatory injunction against defendants-appellants Faustino Torcino and Felipa Torcino at the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte.
The complaint was prepared and signed by Nicolas Nunes, Jr., who identified himself as “Friend counsel for the Plaintiff,” rather than by a duly admitted attorney, but its verification was executed by the plaintiff himself.

The verification clearly stated that the plaintiff had voluntarily sought the aid of Nicolas Nunes, Jr. for filing, prosecuting, and defending his case, and acknowledged that he had read and approved the contents of the complaint.
The document contained all necessary notarization details, including the notarial certificate executed by Nicolas P. Nunes, Jr. prior to December 31, 1972, thereby reinforcing the authenticity of the verification.

Upon filing the answer, the defendants did not contest the fact that the complaint was signed by Nicolas Nunes, Jr.
The Municipal Court, after ordering the parties to submit a proposed compromise agreement, eventually rendered a decision based on an ocular inspection, finding that the defendants had constructed a house encroaching on the plaintiff’s Lot No. 5998, and ordered the demolition and removal of the offending structure.

The defendants appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Leyte and filed motions to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was not signed by a duly admitted attorney, alleging that this irregularity rendered the pleading sham and false.
After the appellant’s motions were denied (the Court of First Instance found that their defenses were untimely raised and waived), the parties later executed a stipulation of facts concerning a relocation survey to determine definitively whether the defendants’ construction encroached on the plaintiff’s lot.
Following the execution of the stipulation and the subsequent report of the geodetic engineer, the Court of First Instance affirmed the municipal court’s decision.

The defendants assigned two main errors in their appeal: (a) that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on the signature defect; and (b) that the trial court erred in affirming the judgment ordering demolition and removal of the encroached structure.
The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that no testimonial or oral evidence was presented, thereby presenting the case on purely legal and technical grounds.

Whether the complaint should have been dismissed for being signed by an individual (Nicolas Nunes, Jr.) who was not a member of the bar, given that he merely acted as a “friend counsel for the Plaintiff.”
Whether the apparent irregularity in the signing of the complaint affected the jurisdiction of the municipal court over the case.

Whether the lower court erred in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants-appellants on procedural grounds.
Whether the ruling ordering the demolition and removal of the allegedly encroaching structure was legally sound, especially in light of the stipulated compromise regarding the results of the relocation survey.