Case Digest (G.R. No. 166301)
Facts:
St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc. and Spouses Crisanto S. Claveria and Gloria M. Claveria v. Masaito Development Corporation and Rexlon Realty Group, Inc., G.R. No. 166301, February 29, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc. (a non‑stock corporation) and its incorporators/officers Spouses Crisanto S. Claveria and Gloria M. Claveria; respondents are developers Masaito Development Corporation and Rexlon Realty Group, Inc., owners/operators of the Citihomes Molino IV subdivision in Bacoor, Cavite.The dispute arose from petitioners’ complaint in the Bacoor, Cavite Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 (Civil Case No. BCV‑2001‑60) for an easement of right‑of‑way under Art. 649 of the Civil Code, damages, and a preliminary injunction/TRO to prevent respondents from fencing off a 61‑square‑meter lot (Lot 4, Block 7, Phase 1) that serves as the only gate and access for the school community. Respondents had made offers for sale of lots fronting the school and proposed terms the petitioners found onerous; petitioners alleged the school and many students/residents relied on the passageway and that there was no other practical access to a public highway.
The RTC issued a temporary restraining order in June 2001, later extended. Respondents moved to dismiss. On July 29, 2002 the RTC dismissed the claims of four individual parent‑plaintiffs for lack of cause of action and denied a writ of preliminary injunction. On September 25, 2003 the RTC granted partial reconsideration and dismissed the complaint of St. Michael and the Claverias for failure to state a cause of action; the RTC found the dominant estates had adequate access to public roads and that the school was not a real party in interest. Petitioners’ omnibus motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on May 5, 2004.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking review of the May 5, 2004 RTC order. The CA dismissed the petition in an August 13, 2004 Resolution on procedural grounds for defective verification and certification of non‑forum shopping under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court (noting among defects that Gloria M. Claveria signed on behalf of co‑petitioners without an attached special power of attorney or board resolution, and counsel failed to state his Roll Number). Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on September 6, 2004 attaching (a) an affidavit by Gloria M. Claveria asserting authorization and verifying the petition based on personal knowledge and authentic records, (b) a Special Power of Attorney from Crisanto Claveria, and (c) a Secretary’s Certificate authorizing Gloria to represent the corporation. The CA denied reconsideration in a November 23, 2004 Resolution, reiterating the requirement for an amended verification.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 45, challenging (1) the CA’s interpretation and application of Section 4, Rule 7 and its demand for an amended verificati...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for defective verification under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and in requiring petitioners to file an amended verification despite their submission of an affidavit, special power of attorney, and secretary’s certificate in their urgent motion for reconsideration?
- Did the Court of Appeals and the trial court commit no grave abuse of discretion when they dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and ruled that petitioners were not real parties in interest in a suit for an eas...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)