Title
Go vs. Rico
Case
G.R. No. 140862
Decision Date
Apr 25, 2006
Petitioners, claiming ownership of a property, sought ejectment of lessees after lease expiration. Court dismissed petition due to procedural defect: counsel signed forum shopping certification instead of petitioners, deemed fatal despite subsequent compliance.
probate proceedings
ailing father
de facto possession

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140862)

Factual Background

Wilson Go and Peter Go alleged that they were the registered owners of the premises described under TCT No. 170475, where a building with several units had been leased to multiple defendants, including the late Pilar Rico whose substitution made Anita Rico the respondent. They claimed that the lease contracts had expired and thus the defendants’ continued stay was merely on a month-to-month basis. They asserted that on March 30, 1997, through counsel, they sent letters terminating the monthly leases effective July 15, 1997, and demanded that the defendants vacate because they were in “dire need of the property for their exclusive use.” They averred that despite the demands, the defendants refused to leave.

The defendants countered that petitioners had no right to evict because the property formed part of the estate of the late Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, subject to probate proceedings before the RTC Branch 95, docketed as SP Proc. No. Q94-20661. They maintained that they had been lessees since 1988 and that the lease contracts had not been terminated. They further alleged that Bella A. Guerrero, then special administratrix of the estate, sold the leased premises to the petitioners in her personal capacity without probate court approval and in conspiracy with petitioners, which allegedly prompted the probate court to remove Guerrero and appoint Resurrecion Bihis as the new administratrix. They claimed that Bihis renewed their leases, so petitioners allegedly had no basis to evict them.

MeTC Proceedings and Decision

On July 10, 1998, the MeTC, Branch 40 rendered a decision ordering ejectment. The MeTC held that the plaintiffs were the registered owners, as shown by TCT evidence presented (Annex “A”). It also ruled that the defendants possessed the property “by mere tolerance” of the plaintiffs. On that premise, the MeTC concluded that defendants, as mere possessors by tolerance, had an implied obligation to vacate upon demand by the owner, and that ejectment was proper when actual need arose.

The MeTC treated the case as an ejectment dispute where the only issue was the right to physical or material possession, independent of any ownership question the parties might raise. It cited De Luna vs. CA and emphasized that even if the estate of Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura was not included as a party, the MeTC could still decide the case. It further reasoned that the defendants had no relation to the reconveyance case pending before the RTC Branch 92, Quezon City.

RTC Appellate Review and Dismissal

Only the respondent appealed to the RTC. In the RTC Decision dated July 10, 1998, the RTC reversed the MeTC and dismissed petitioners’ complaint. The RTC found that defendant-appellant produced lease contracts with the late Felisa and, more significantly, that a lease existed between defendant-appellant and the estate through the new administratrix, Resurrecion Bihis. The RTC also noted that Bella Guerrero, according to the record, had declared the leased property as part of the estate in the settlement proceedings. It added that there was a pending reconveyance action filed by the estate of Felisa against the Gos, involving alleged unlawful or fictitious transfer of the property.

The RTC held that the right of Bella Guerrero, from whom petitioners allegedly derived their interest, was still debatable. While it recognized that pendency of reconveyance and mere allegations of ownership generally do not bar ejectment, it relied on an exception from De la Santa vs. Court of Appeals: it reasoned that where de facto possession could not be determined without settling de jure possession and ownership because they were inseparably linked, the court should give importance to title and should not disturb the peaceful possession of the lessee pending resolution of the prejudicial question.

Court of Appeals Dismissal for Non-Compliance with Forum Shopping Certification

After the RTC’s dismissal, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53342 on July 6, 1999. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright in a Resolution dated August 16, 1999, on the ground that petitioners failed to comply with the Rule on Certification of Non-Forum Shopping under par. 2, Section 2 in relation to Section 3, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The Court of Appeals found that the certification executed in the petition was signed by petitioners’ counsel rather than by petitioners themselves.

Petitioners then moved for reconsideration with compliance, asserting that counsel was compelled to sign because Wilson Go had left for the United States due to his ailing father and Peter Go was in Cebu for business commitments; that counsel did not wait for signatures because the filing period might expire; and that petitioners allegedly granted counsel a Special Power of Attorney authorizing representation during pre-trial and hearing in the MeTC ejectment case. Petitioners attached to the motion a certification against forum shopping signed by Wilson Go. Despite these explanations, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 25, 1999.

The Parties’ Contentions in the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error by refusing to give due course to their petition. They asserted that the rules on certification should have been applied “liberally” in their favor, taking into account their subsequent compliance and counsel’s explanation for why she signed the certification in the first instance.

Respondent opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal, urging that the Court of Appeals rulings be affirmed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court anchored its resolution on the mandatory nature of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and the certification requirement in Rule 42 for petitions from the RTC to the Court of Appeals. Section 5, Rule 7 requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath, in the complaint or a sworn certification annexed and filed simultaneously, that there is no prior similar action involving the same issues and to report within five days any later discovery of a similar pending case. It provides that failure to comply shall be a cause for dismissal without prejudice unless otherwise provided, and that willful and deliberate forum shopping may result in summary dismissal with prejudice and contempt or sanctions. Rule 42, Section 2 similarly requires that the petitioner submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or other tribunal or agency, and undertake to inform the court within five days if he later learns of a similar pending proceeding.

The Supreme Court emphasized the core defect: petitioners admitted that neither of them signed the certification against forum shopping; it was signed only by their counsel. The Court held that a certification by counsel, without the principal party’s signature, was “no certification at all,” because the rule required

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms