Case Digest (G.R. No. 186045)
Facts:
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Estanislao Minoza, G.R. No. 186045, February 02, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition arose from an action originally filed on July 6, 1998 by Leila M. Hermosisima (for herself and other purported heirs of the late Estanislao Minoza) for reconveyance, cancellation of title, issuance of a new title and damages, alleging that their predecessors sold Cadastral Lot Nos. 986 and 991‑A to the National Airports Corporation (NAC) in 1950 with an oral buy‑back assurance and that the lots were later titled in the name of the Mactan‑Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA, petitioner here) but should be reconveyed to the plaintiffs.During trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, before the MCIAA presented its evidence, a Motion for Intervention (with a complaint‑in‑intervention) was filed on November 16, 1999 by the Intervenors — the heirs of Filomeno T. Minoza, Pedro T. Minoza and Florencia T. Minoza — who claimed they are the true heirs of Estanislao and alleged that Adriana, Patricio and Santiago Minoza fraudulently executed an extrajudicial settlement and sold the subject lots to the NAC. The intervenors sought declarations of heirship and ownership, annulment of the extrajudicial settlement and sale, cancellation and restoration of titles, and damages.
On February 18, 2000 the RTC denied the Motion to Intervene, reasoning that the litigated issue was the right to repurchase and that the intervenors’ claimed rights would be better asserted in a separate proceeding; the trial court also noted defects in the complaint‑in‑intervention (lack of verification and certification against forum shopping). The intervenors filed a motion for reconsideration attaching a verified complaint‑in‑intervention with the required certification, but the RTC denied reconsideration by Order dated July 25, 2000.
The intervenors elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 70429. On March 25, 2008 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders and directed the RTC to admit the complaint‑in‑intervention, holding that determination of the true heirs was the focal issue and that the subsequent filing of a verified complaint cured procedural defects. Petitioner MCIAA moved for reconsideration before the CA, which denied the motion on January 8, 2009.
MCIAA filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking r...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the initial lack of verification and certification against forum shopping in the intervenors’ complaint cured by their subsequent filing such that procedural requirements for intervention were substantially complied with?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering admission of the complaint‑in‑intervention — i.e., was intervention proper under Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court given the nature of the intervenors’ claimed interest and the likelihood of d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)