G.R. No. 200191 - Ferdez vs. Villegas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200191)

Factual Background

The plaintiffs, sisters Lourdes C. Fernandez and Cecilia Siapno, through an attorney-in-fact, Imelda S. Slater, filed a Complaint for Ejectment on August 21, 2008 to recover possession of a parcel of land in Guilig Street, Dagupan City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19170. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were the registered owners and that the respondents, who formerly resided with them, had erected a house on the lot after a typhoon destroyed the original house, refused demands to vacate, and unlawfully retained possession. Attempts at barangay conciliation and mediation did not produce settlement.

MTCC Proceedings and Ruling

The MTCC found that respondents failed to impugn the validity of plaintiffs’ ownership and that plaintiffs, as owners, had the right to exclude respondents from the property pursuant to Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Code. The MTCC ordered respondents to vacate, to pay PHP 1,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation from the filing of the complaint, to pay PHP 10,000.00 as attorneys’ fees, and to pay costs of suit.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling

Respondents appealed to the RTC, which in a Decision dated March 16, 2010 granted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. The RTC ruled that there was no substantial compliance with mandatory barangay conciliation and mediation under Presidential Decree No. 1508, especially given the parties’ close familial relationship, and that respondents were builders in good faith who could not be summarily ejected without compliance with Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the Civil Code. The RTC ordered plaintiffs to pay respondents PHP 50,000.00 as attorneys’ fees. The RTC denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings

Plaintiffs filed a petition for review under Rule 42, Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. Respondents moved to dismiss on grounds that Cecilia failed to personally verify the petition and that the appeal was dilatory. The CA, in a Resolution dated June 22, 2011, granted the motion to dismiss on the basis that the verification and the certification against forum shopping attached to the CA petition were defective because they were signed only by Lourdes, contrary to Section 5, Rule 7 which requires all plaintiffs to sign. The CA held that there was no showing that Cecilia authorized Lourdes to sign the certification on her behalf and that the submitted special powers did not constitute substantial compliance. The CA also noted plaintiffs’ failure to comply with its October 11, 2010 directive to file an amended verification and certification. A motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated December 28, 2011.

Issue Presented

The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for defective verification and defective certification against forum shopping when the petition was signed only by Lourdes though filed on behalf of both co-plaintiffs who were sisters and co-owners.

Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiffs contended that Lourdes, as co-owner, had authority to file the ejectment action without joining Cecilia pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and that Lourdes was specially authorized by Imelda to file the CA petition. Respondents argued that defective verification and certification warranted dismissal under the Rules, and that Cecilia’s failure to personally verify and sign the certification defeated the petition.

Legal Rules Articulated by the Supreme Court

The Court articulated guidelines distinguishing verification from certification against forum shopping: (a) noncompliance with verification is not necessarily fatal and may be corrected or excused where substantial compliance exists; (b) verification is substantially complied with when a person with ample knowledge swears to the truth of allegations and the allegations are made in good faith; (c) noncompliance with certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by amendment, but the rule may be relaxed under justifiable circumstances or substantial compliance; (d) the certification against forum shopping must normally be signed by all plaintiffs, and failure to sign may result in dropping of non-signing parties, yet where plaintiffs share a common interest and invoke a common cause the signature of one may constitute substantial compliance; and (e) the certification must be executed by the party-pleader and not by counsel unless a special power of attorney authorizes counsel to sign.

Application of Law to the Facts

The Court found that Lourdes was a co-owner and resident of the subject property and thus had ample knowledge to sign the verification. The Court relied on Article 487 of the Civil Code, which permits any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment for the benefit of all co-owners. Because the co-plaintiffs shared a common interest and commo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 200191)

Parties and Posture

Lourdes C. Fernandez was the petitioner before the Supreme Court and one of the co-plaintiffs in the ejectment action below.
Cecilia Siapno was the co-plaintiff in the ejectment action and sister of Lourdes C. Fernandez.
Imelda S. Slater appeared in the MTCC records as attorney-in-fact for Cecilia Siapno.
Norma Villegas and any person acting in her behalf including her family were the respondents in the ejectment action.
The ejectment case was initially filed in the MTCC, appealed to the RTC, then brought as a petition for review to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116143, and thereafter petitioned to the Supreme Court by Lourdes C. Fernandez alone.

Key Facts

The subject property was a parcel situated in Guilig Street, Dagupan City covered by TCT No. 19170 which plaintiffs alleged they owned.
Lourdes C. Fernandez and Cecilia Siapno formerly lived with respondents under one roof and were co-owners of the property.
After typhoon Cosme destroyed the house, Lourdes moved into a nipa hut on the lot while respondents were temporarily allowed to use a portion of the lot but later erected a house despite plaintiffs' objections.
Plaintiffs sought ejectment after respondents refused to vacate and surrender possession despite demands and barangay conciliation efforts that produced no settlement.
Respondents pleaded donation by Lourdes in favor of Cecilia and relied on a declaration that the property belonged to Eddie, Norma’s late husband, and they contended there was no compliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

Procedural History

The MTCC, in a Decision dated September 30, 2009, found for the plaintiffs and ordered respondents to vacate, pay PHP 1,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation, pay PHP 10,000.00 attorneys' fees, and pay costs of suit.
Respondents appealed to the RTC, Branch 40, which, in a Decision dated March 16, 2010, granted the appeal and dismissed the complaint on the ground of noncompliance with barangay conciliation and on the ground that respondents were builders in good faith under Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the Civil Code.
The RTC likewise ordered plaintiffs to pay respondents PHP 50,000.00 as attorneys' fees, and the RTC denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 18, 2010.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116143, which the CA dismissed by Resolution dated June 22, 2011 for defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and which denial of reconsideration was affirmed in a Resolution dated December 28, 2011.
Lourdes C. Fernandez alone filed the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court assailing the CA Resolutions dated June 22, 2011 and December 28, 2011.

Issue

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the CA petition on the ground that the verification and the certification against forum shopping were defective because they were signed only by Lourdes C. Fernandez and not by her co-plaintiff Cecilia Siapno.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition and held that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the CA petition for defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA Resolutions dated June 22, 2011