Docena vs. Lapesura

A procedural amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65 resetting the 60-day period for filing certiorari from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration applies retroactively to pending and undetermined actions, and a husband's sole signature on the certification of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance where the petition defends conjugal property and the husband is the statutory administrator thereof.

Spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena were lessees of a parcel of land claimed by private respondent Casiano Hombria, who filed an action for recovery of the land against them in the RTC of Guian, Eastern Samar, Branch 3 (Civil Case No. 446). The subject property was alleged to be conjugal property of the spouses. The dispute reached the execution stage after the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision in favor of the spouses and ordered them to vacate the leased land, prompting a series of motions, clarificatory resolutions, and writs of demolition that led to the instant certiorari proceedings.

On June 1, 1977, private respondent Casiano Hombria filed a complaint for recovery of a parcel of land against his lessees, spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena, in the RTC of Guian, Eastern Samar, Branch 3, docketed as Civil Case No. 446. The petitioners claimed ownership of the land based on occupation since time immemorial. A certain Guillermo Abuda intervened in the case. On November 24, 1989, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners and the intervenor Abuda.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered the petitioners to vacate the land they had leased from Hombria, excluding the portion which they had reclaimed from the sea and which formed part of the shore, as shown in the Commissioner's Report, and to pay Hombria the agreed rental of P1.00 per year from the date of filing of the complaint until they actually vacated the premises. The complaint in intervention of Abuda was dismissed. The decision became final and executory.

On May 22, 1995, Hombria filed a Motion for Execution, which the public respondent judge granted, issuing a Writ of Execution. The public respondent sheriff subsequently filed a Manifestation requesting clarification as to which particular portion should be excluded prior to delivery of the land, in view of defects in the Commissioner's Report and the sketches attached thereto. After requiring the parties to comment, the public respondent judge issued a Resolution dated August 30, 1996, holding that no attempt should be made to alter or modify the Court of Appeals' decision and that the portion leased by the defendants from the plaintiff should be delivered, excluding the reclaimed portion.

Pursuant to that Resolution, the sheriff issued an alias Writ of Demolition. The petitioners filed a Motion to Set Aside or Defer the Implementation of the Writ of Demolition, which the trial court denied in an Order dated November 18, 1998. A copy of that Order was received by the petitioners on December 29, 1998. On the same date, the public respondent judge, in open court, granted the petitioners until January 13, 1999 to file a Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioners moved for an extension until January 28, 1999, and filed the motion on January 27, 1999. The trial court denied the motion in an Order dated March 17, 1999, a copy of which was received by the petitioners on May 4, 1999.

The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals on June 14, 1999, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge in issuing the Orders dated November 18, 1998 and March 17, 1999, and of the sheriff in issuing the alias Writ of Demolition. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on June 18, 1999, finding it filed beyond the 60-day period under Section 4 of Rule 65 as amended by Bar Matter No. 803, and noting that the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on September 9, 1999. Hence, the present petition.

• Timeliness of Filing: Petitioners agreed that the 60-day period commenced on December 29, 1998, the date of receipt of the assailed trial court order, interrupted by the filing of the motion for reconsideration on January 27, 1999, and resumed upon receipt of the denial on May 4, 1999. However, they contended that only the 15-day period allowed for filing a motion for reconsideration should be deemed to have elapsed, leaving 45 days remaining, making the June 14, 1999 filing timely.
• Sufficiency of Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: Petitioners argued that since they are spouses with joint or indivisible interest over the alleged conjugal property subject of the original action, the signing of the certificate of non-forum shopping by only one of them would suffice, especially considering the long distance they had to travel from Guian, Eastern Samar to Manila just to sign the certificate. They further contended that there was substantial compliance, as the certification was signed by the husband who is the statutory administrator of the conjugal property.

• Period to File Petition for Certiorari: Whether the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals on June 14, 1999 was timely, considering the amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65 by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC which took effect on September 1, 2000.
• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: Whether the certification of non-forum shopping signed by only one of the two petitioners (the husband) constitutes sufficient compliance with the rules, given that the subject property is conjugal.

• Period to File Petition for Certiorari: Yes. The petition was timely filed. A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4 of Rule 65 to provide that the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, is procedural in nature and applies retroactively to pending and undetermined actions.
• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: Yes. The husband's sole signature constituted substantial compliance. The subject property is conjugal, the husband is the statutory administrator thereof, and the petition was clearly intended for the benefit of the conjugal partnership; rigid application of the rules on forum shopping would be too harsh under the circumstances.

• Period to File Petition for Certiorari: The Court applied A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000 and amended Section 4 of Rule 65 to provide that where a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. Citing Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC, the Court held that the amendment, being procedural in nature, is applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage, and that retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right, as no vested right attaches to procedural laws. This ruling was reiterated in Unity Fishing Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals. Applying the amendment, the 60-day period was reckoned from May 4, 1999 (receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration), making the June 14, 1999 filing well within the reglementary period.

• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: While the general rule, as stated in Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, requires that the certification of non-forum shopping be signed by all petitioners, the Court found substantial compliance under the specific circumstances. There were only two petitioners — husband and wife — and the subject property was conjugal. Under the New Civil Code, the husband is the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership and may defend it in a suit without being joined by the wife; corollarily, he may execute the necessary certificate of non-forum shopping. Under the Family Code, while administration belongs to both spouses jointly, each spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone, subject to court intervention. The husband could have filed the petition alone without his wife's concurrence; with more reason could he sign the certification. Moreover, the husband certified on behalf of both himself and his wife, and could reasonably be presumed to have personal knowledge of whether his wife had filed any similar action, given that the legal proceedings involved real property. The Court also noted the practical difficulty: the wife was in Guian, Samar, while the petition was prepared in Metro Manila. The Court stressed that the rules on forum shopping, designed to promote orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their ultimate objective.

• Retroactive Application of Procedural Laws — Procedural laws apply retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. No vested right attaches to nor arises from procedural laws, so retroactive application is not violative of any right of a person adversely affected. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, amending Section 4 of Rule 65, applied to the petition pending before the Court of Appeals, resetting the 60-day period to run from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration.

• Substantial Compliance with Certification of Non-Forum Shopping — While the general rule requires all petitioners to sign the certification of non-forum shopping, substantial compliance may be recognized where the circumstances warrant. Where the petitioners are spouses, the subject property is conjugal, and the petition defends conjugal property, the husband's sole signature on the certification suffices, as the husband is the statutory administrator of conjugal property under the New Civil Code and may defend it without being joined by the wife. Under the Family Code, each spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone. The rules on forum shopping should not be applied with absolute literalness so as to subvert their ultimate objective of promoting orderly administration of justice.

• Husband as Administrator and Defender of Conjugal Property — Under the New Civil Code (Article 165), the husband is the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership and may defend the conjugal partnership in a suit without being joined by the wife. Under the Family Code (Article 124), administration belongs to both spouses jointly, but each spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone, subject to court intervention. In neither regime does the signing of a certification of non-forum shopping by the husband alone constitute a fatal defect where the petition defends conjugal property.

• "The retroactive application of procedural laws such as this Resolution is not violative of any right of a person who may feel adversely affected thereby, as no vested right may attach to nor arise from procedural laws." — This passage articulates the doctrinal basis for retroactive application of procedural amendments, specifically the amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65, and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on retroactivity of procedural rules.

• "It bears stressing that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the substantial compliance doctrine regarding certification of non-forum shopping, balancing technical compliance against the purpose of the rules.

• "If suits to defend an interest in the conjugal properties may be filed by the husband alone, with more reason, he may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached to the petition." — This passage establishes the logical link between the husband's statutory authority to defend conjugal property and his capacity to sign the certification of non-forum shopping alone, forming the core of the substantial compliance reasoning.

• Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 143789, November 27, 2000 — Controlling precedent on retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC amending Section 4 of Rule 65; held that the amendment, being procedural, applies to pending and undetermined actions.
• Unity Fishing Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145415, February 2, 2001 — Followed and reiterated the ruling in Systems Factors on retroactive application of procedural laws.
• Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000 — Cited for the general rule that the certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by all petitioners; distinguished in this case on the ground of substantial compliance.
• Ysasi vs. Fernandez, 23 SCRA 1079 (1968) — Cited for the proposition that under the New Civil Code, the husband is the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership and the wife is not entitled as a matter of right to join him in administration.
• Vda de Sta. Romana vs. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, 118 SCRA 330 (1982) — Cited for the rule that the husband may defend the conjugal partnership in a suit without being joined by the wife.

• Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC) — Provides that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration. Applied retroactively to hold that the petition filed on June 14, 1999 was timely, the 60-day period being reckoned from May 4, 1999.
• Article 165, New Civil Code — Provides that the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. Applied to support the conclusion that the husband, as sole administrator, may sign the certification of non-forum shopping alone.
• Article 124, Family Code — Provides that administration and enjoyment of conjugal partnership property belongs to both spouses jointly, but each spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone, subject to court intervention. Applied to support the conclusion that even under the Family Code, the husband alone could file the petition and sign the certification.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the certification of non-forum shopping requirement. Interpreted with flexibility to allow substantial compliance where the husband signed on behalf of both spouses in defense of conjugal property.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concurred.