Title
Shipside Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 143377
Decision Date
Feb 20, 2001
A 1958 land title dispute involving multiple sales, nullification, and revival of judgment; Supreme Court ruled action barred by prescription, favoring Shipside Incorporated.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143377)

Cancellation of Galvez’s Original Title

In 1963 the Court of First Instance, in LRC Case No. N-361, declared OCT No. 0-381 null and void and ordered its cancellation, without prejudice to subsequent actions by parties in interest. This ruling was affirmed on appeal, became final on October 23, 1973, and a writ of execution was issued and served in April 1974.

Acquisition by Shipside and Proprietary Rights

On October 28, 1963 Lepanto sold Lots 1 and 4 to Shipside, which acquired TCT No. T-5710 and exercised ownership rights thereafter.

Revival of Judgment and Cancellation Complaint

Twenty-five years after finality, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic, filed in April 1999 an action for revival of judgment and cancellation of titles covering all lots under OCT 0-381, impleading Shipside and other successors.

Trial Court Proceedings and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss

Shipside moved to dismiss on grounds that only final and executory judgments are subject to revival (Rule 39/Art. 1144(3)), that the Republic lacked real interest (property transferred to BCDA under RA 7227), and that the action was barred by the ten-year prescription. The RTC denied the motion and its reconsideration in August and October 1999.

Petition for Certiorari and CA Rulings

Shipside sought certiorari and prohibition before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of proof of authority for the resident manager who signed the verification and certification against forum shopping, and denied reconsideration for same reason.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether a corporation’s resident manager may file a petition absent prior board authorization.
  2. Whether the Republic may maintain an action for revival of judgment after transfer of property to BCDA and despite prescription.

Authority to File, Verification, and Forum-Shopping Certificate

Under the Corporation Code, the power to sue lies with the board of directors and authorized officers. Although the petition initially lacked proof of authorization for the resident manager’s signature, Shipside later submitted a secretary’s certificate showing board approval before filing. The Court treats verification and non-forum-shopping certificates as formal requirements subject to correction in the interest of substantial justice. The petition’s merits and belated proof of authority justified relief from strict dismissal.

Prescription of Revival Action

An action to revive a final and executory judgment must be brought within ten years from finality (Art. 1144(3); Rule 39, § 6). The judgment here became final on October 23, 1973, but the revival complaint was filed in 1999—over twenty-five yea

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.