Case Digest (G.R. No. 200191)
Facts:
Lourdes C. Fernandez v. Norma Villegas and Any Person Acting in Her Behalf Including Her Family, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lourdes C. Fernandez (Lourdes), together with her sister Cecilia Siapno (Cecilia) and represented in some steps by attorney‑in‑fact Imelda S. Slater, instituted an ejectment complaint on August 21, 2008 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Dagupan City (Civil Case No. 15980), seeking possession of a parcel covered by TCT No. 19170 against respondent Norma Villegas (Norma) and any person acting in her behalf (respondents). The complaint alleged that Lourdes and Cecilia were the registered owners and that respondents, after earlier residing with the plaintiffs and despite demands, erected a house and refused to vacate.
Respondents answered, alleging lack of standing (claiming Lourdes had donated her portion to Cecilia) and that Cecilia had declared the property belonged to Eddie (Norma’s late husband); they also claimed noncompliance with the mandatory barangay conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay law and pointed out the absence of a Certificate to File Action. The MTCC, in a Decision dated September 30, 2009, ruled for the plaintiffs: respondents were ordered to vacate, to pay P1,000/month as reasonable compensation from filing, P10,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, which, in its Decision of March 16, 2010, reversed the MTCC and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint on grounds of failure to substantially comply with barangay conciliation (given the close kinship) and because respondents were builders in good faith protected by Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the Civil Code; the RTC also awarded respondents P50,000 attorneys’ fees. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC (re‑raffled to Branch 44) in an August 18, 2010 Resolution.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals (CA). Respondents moved to dismiss the CA petition arguing defective verification and certification against forum shopping because only Lourdes signed those documents and Cecilia did not personally verify or sign. In a Resolution dated June 22, 2011, the CA granted the motion and dismissed the petition for defective verification/certification (citing Section 5, Rule 7 of the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the CA petition for defective verification — i.e., was there substantial compliance with the verification requirement when only one co‑plaintiff signed?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the CA petition for defective certification against forum shopping — i.e., may the requirement of signatures by all plaintiffs be relaxed where co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)