Case Summary (G.R. No. 171219)
Factual Background
The parcel of land in dispute is located at 1287 Castanos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, evidence of title appearing as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 150872 in the name of CONSTANTINO ANGELES. From 1979 until 1993 the property was in the possession of one Jelly Galiga as a lessee under a lease contract. On September 7, 1993, ATTY. FE Q. PALMIANO-SALVADOR alleged that she bought the subject parcel from Galiga, who represented himself as owner by virtue of possession. Petitioner remained in possession from November 1993 to the times relevant to the litigation. On November 18, 1993, CONSTANTINO ANGELES sent a demand letter for vacation of the premises, which petitioner did not heed.
Trial Court Proceedings
On October 12, 1994 one Rosauro Diaz filed a complaint for ejectment in the name of CONSTANTINO ANGELES with the Metropolitan Trial Court. The MeTC rendered judgment on November 29, 1999 ordering petitioner to vacate, to pay PHP 1,000.00 monthly as reasonable compensation from November 1993 until actual vacation, and to pay PHP 5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which denied the appeal in a decision dated March 12, 2003; a motion for reconsideration was denied on March 16, 2004. Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals, but the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a decision dated September 16, 2005 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 13, 2006.
The Parties’ Contentions Regarding Authority to Sue
From the outset petitioner raised the issue that Diaz, who executed the verification and certification on October 12, 1994, lacked authority to represent CONSTANTINO ANGELES at the time the complaint was filed. The complaint as filed contained no copy of any instrument proving Diaz’s authority. More than a year later, in respondent’s Reply and/or Comment filed December 11, 1995, a document denominated a Special Power of Attorney was attached. That SPA bore the date November 16, 1994, being executed after the filing of the complaint.
Documentary Defects and Evidentiary Considerations
The SPA was notarized by one Robert F. McGuire of Santa Clara County, California, but no certification from the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California, was produced to verify McGuire’s status as a notary public. The Court noted that without such authentication the document could not be accorded full faith and credit as an official act of a foreign notary and therefore had no evidentiary weight to prove that Diaz had authority at the time the complaint was filed.
Applicable Precedent on Unauthorized Filings
The Court relied on its prior rulings that a complaint filed by a person not authorized to sue for and in behalf of the plaintiff is not deemed filed and produces no legal effect. In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals the Court stated that an unauthorized complaint must be dismissed because the court never acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff. The Court reiterated the same principle as recently stated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, observing that courts acquire jurisdiction over plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint and that lack of authority to file is fatal to that invocation of jurisdiction.
The Court’s Analysis and Conclusion
Applying the foregoing precedents, the Court concluded that because there was nothing on record proving that Diaz had authority to file the ejectment complaint at the time of fil
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171219)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- ATTY. FE Q. PAL MIANO-SALVADOR, PETITIONER filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of her petition.
- CONSTANTINO ANGELES, SUBSTITUTED BY LUZ G. ANGELES, RESPONDENT was the registered owner of the parcel of land in dispute and the named plaintiff in the ejectment action before the Metropolitan Trial Court.
- The ejectment case was filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, decided in favor of CONSTANTINO ANGELES, affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, and the affirmation was in turn reviewed and dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
- The Supreme Court resolved the present Rule 45 petition and granted relief by setting aside the lower courts' decisions and dismissing the complaint filed in the MeTC.
Key Factual Allegations
- CONSTANTINO ANGELES held legal title evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 150872 for a parcel at 1287 Castanos Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
- One Jelly Galiga occupied the parcel as a lessee from 1979 to 1993 and purportedly sold the property to ATTY. FE Q. PAL MIANO-SALVADOR on September 7, 1993.
- ATTY. FE Q. PAL MIANO-SALVADOR remained in possession from November 1993 onward and ignored a November 18, 1993 demand by CONSTANTINO ANGELES to vacate.
- The ejectment complaint was filed on October 12, 1994 by Rosauro Diaz allegedly as attorney-in-fact for CONSTANTINO ANGELES, but no documentary proof of Diaz's authority was attached to the filed complaint.
Issue Presented
- Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court acquired jurisdiction where the complaint was filed by a person who failed to prove authority to act for the plaintiff at the time of filing.
Lower Court Findings
- The MeTC rendered judgment ordering ejectment and payment of use and occupancy, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- The Regional Trial Court affirmed the MeTC decision and denied the motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the factual finding that Galiga was only a lessee and could not convey