Fernandez vs. Villegas

Where the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them on the verification and on the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the rules, the verification being merely a formal and non-jurisdictional requirement and the certification rule not being subject to absolute literal interpretation.

Lourdes C. Fernandez and her sister Cecilia Siapno were the registered co-owners of a parcel of land on Guilig Street, Dagupan City covered by TCT No. 19170, on which Lourdes and the family of respondent Norma Villegas had previously lived under one roof. Norma is Cecilia's daughter-in-law, which places the contending parties within the close-relative setting that the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, Presidential Decree No. 1508, treats as a condition precedent to court action. The case reached the SC on a purely procedural question arising from the CA's dismissal of the appeal for defective verification and certification against forum shopping, a disposition that turned on whether the co-plaintiffs' common interest in the property excused the absence of Cecilia's signature.

Lourdes C. Fernandez and her sister Cecilia Siapno were the registered owners of a parcel of land situated on Guilig Street, Dagupan City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19170. On that property, Lourdes and the respondents had previously lived under one roof. When their house was destroyed by typhoon "Cosme," Lourdes transferred to a nipa hut on the same lot, while Norma Villegas — Cecilia's daughter-in-law — and her family were advised to relocate but were, in the meantime, allowed to use a portion of the property.

Instead of relocating, respondents erected a house on the property over the plaintiffs' objections and, despite demands, refused to vacate and surrender possession. The dispute was referred to the Barangay Office of Pugo Chico and to the Public Attorney's Office, both in Dagupan City, but no settlement was reached. On August 21, 2008, Lourdes and Cecilia, the latter represented by her attorney-in-fact Imelda S. Slater, filed a complaint for ejectment before the MTCC, Branch 1, Dagupan City, docketed as Civil Case No. 15980, seeking to recover possession of the subject property.

In their Answer, respondents averred that the complaint stated no cause of action, considering that Lourdes had no standing to question their possession of the property as she had already donated her portion in favor of Cecilia, and that Cecilia was bound by her declaration that "the house and lot belong[s] to Eddie," Norma's late husband. Respondents further asserted that there was no compliance with the required conciliation and mediation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, as no Certificate to File Action was attached to the complaint, rendering the complaint dismissible.

The MTCC found that respondents failed to impugn the validity of the plaintiffs' ownership over the subject property and, applying Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Code, ordered respondents to vacate the property and to pay ₱1,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the portion they occupied, reckoned from the filing of the complaint, plus ₱10,000.00 in attorney's fees and the costs of suit. Respondents appealed to the RTC, Branch 40, Dagupan City, which reversed on the grounds that there was no substantial compliance with the mandatory conciliation and mediation process before the barangay, especially considering that the parties are very close relatives, and that respondents are builders in good faith who cannot be summarily ejected without compliance with Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the Civil Code; the RTC further ordered the plaintiffs to jointly and severally pay respondents ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, Branch 44, prompting them to file the CA petition signed and verified by Lourdes alone.

• Co-ownership and Article 487: Petitioner maintained that Lourdes, as co-owner of the subject property, has the right to file an ejectment case by herself, without joining her co-owner Cecilia, as provided under Article 487 of the Civil Code.
• Authority to Sign: Petitioner maintained that Lourdes was specially authorized by Imelda to file the CA petition.

• Defective Verification: Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Cecilia failed to personally verify the petition.
• Dilatory Appeal: Respondents argued that the appeal is dilatory.
• No Cause of Action: Respondents averred that the complaint stated no cause of action, considering that Lourdes has no standing to question their possession of the subject property as she had already donated her portion in favor of Cecilia, and that Cecilia is bound by her declaration that "the house and lot belong[s] to Eddie," Norma's late husband.
• Non-Compliance with Katarungang Pambarangay Law: Respondents asserted that there was no compliance with the required conciliation and mediation under Presidential Decree No. 1508, as no Certificate to File Action was attached to the complaint, thereby rendering the complaint dismissible.

• Verification: Whether the CA erred in dismissing outright the CA petition on the ground that the verification attached thereto was signed by only one of the two co-plaintiffs.
• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether the CA erred in dismissing outright the CA petition on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was signed by only one of the two co-plaintiffs.

• Verification: No. Lourdes, as a resident and co-owner with ample knowledge of the allegations, validly signed the verification, and her lone signature constituted substantial compliance with the rules.
• Certification Against Forum Shopping: No. Where the plaintiffs share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the certification requirement.

• Verification: The SC laid down six guidelines on non-compliance with, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping, distinguishing the two: as to verification, non-compliance or a defect does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, and the court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading where strict compliance may be dispensed with in the ends of justice. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs it, and when the matters alleged have been made in good faith or are true and correct. Applying these, the SC found it undisputed that Lourdes is not only a resident of the subject property but a co-owner thereof together with Cecilia, making her one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the CA petition. Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed instituted for the benefit of all. Since both Lourdes and Cecilia are co-plaintiffs sharing a commonality of interest and cause of action against respondents, and since the CA petition itself indicated that they are the petitioners therein and that it was filed on their behalf, Lourdes' lone signature on the verification constituted substantial compliance. The SC relied on Medado vs. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, which held that where the petitioners are immediate relatives who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of them executed the verification or certification will not deter the court from proceeding with the action. It further stressed that verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct, so courts may simply order correction or act on the pleadings and waive strict compliance.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Following the fifth guideline, the SC held that there was likewise substantial compliance with the certification requirement notwithstanding that only Lourdes signed it. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances — as where the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense — the rule requiring all of them to sign the certification may be relaxed. Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate objectives; the requirement of strict compliance merely underscores the certification's mandatory nature, such that it cannot altogether be dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded, but it does not prohibit substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. The SC concluded that because there was substantial compliance with the procedural requirements at the onset, the plaintiffs' subsequent failure to file an amended verification and certification as directed by the Oct. 11, 2010 CA Resolution should not have warranted the dismissal of the CA petition.

• Substantial Compliance with Verification — Verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. It is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs the verification, and when the matters alleged have been made in good faith or are true and correct. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading, if the circumstances are such that strict compliance may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served. Applied here, Lourdes' lone signature sufficed because she was a resident co-owner with ample knowledge of the allegations.
• Substantial Compliance with the Certification Against Forum Shopping — Non-compliance with, or a defect in, the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless there is a need to relax the rule on the ground of substantial compliance or the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons. The certification must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however — as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense — the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the rule.
• Execution of the Certification by the Party-Pleader — The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
• Co-Owner's Standing to Sue for Ejectment — Under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. This supplied the basis for treating Lourdes' lone signature as substantial compliance, since she was suing over property she co-owned.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules on Forum Shopping — The rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate objectives. Strict compliance underscores the certification's mandatory nature — it cannot altogether be dispensed with — but does not prohibit substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances.

• "Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct." — Guideline No. 3 in the SC's six-part framework; the standard under which Lourdes' lone signature was upheld.
• "Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule." — Guideline No. 5; the doctrinal core of the ruling on the certification against forum shopping.
• "In fact, Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all." — The statutory anchor for holding that Lourdes could act alone and that her signature bound the common cause of action.
• "Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objectives." — The rationale for relaxing the certification requirement instead of dismissing the appeal outright.

• Ingles vs. Estrada, G.R. Nos. 141809, 147186, and 173641, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 285 — Controlling precedent; the SC adopted verbatim its six guidelines on non-compliance with, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping, and relied on it for relaxing the certification requirement.
• Medado vs. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 534 — Relied upon; held that where petitioners are immediate relatives sharing a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one executed the verification or certification will not deter the court from proceeding.
• Mendoza vs. Coronel, G.R. No. 156402, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 353 — Cited for the rule that any co-owner may bring an action for ejectment without joining all the other co-owners.
• Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile, 448 Phil. 302 (2003) — Cited for the relaxation of the certification against forum shopping requirement under justifiable circumstances.
• Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Judge Ponferrada, 536 Phil. 705 (2006) — Cited among the authorities supporting substantial compliance with the verification and certification requirements.
• Calo vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 153756, January 30, 2006, 480 SCRA 561 — Cited alongside Iglesia ni Cristo and Cavile on substantial compliance.
• Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo vs. Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 453 — Cited as further authority for relaxing the certification requirement.
• Bautista vs. Causapin, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 442 — Cited for the rule that the forum shopping rules are not to be applied with absolute literalness.

• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath in the initiatory pleading or in a sworn certification annexed thereto that he has not commenced any other action involving the same issues, that he will report any such pending action within five days, and that failure to comply shall not be curable by mere amendment but shall be cause for dismissal without prejudice upon motion and after hearing. Applied here, the SC relaxed the requirement and treated Lourdes' lone signature as substantial compliance.
• Article 487, Civil Code — Any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, the suit being deemed instituted for the benefit of all. Applied to uphold Lourdes' standing to sue alone and to justify her sole execution of the verification and certification.
• Articles 428 and 429, Civil Code — Define the owner's right to enjoy, use, and receive the fruits of the thing, and to exclude others from its enjoyment. Applied by the MTCC in finding that the plaintiffs, as owners, were entitled to eject respondents.
• Articles 448, 546, and 548, Civil Code — Govern the rights of the builder in good faith and the obligations of the landowner and builder with respect to the works, plants, and improvements. Applied by the RTC as the ground for holding that respondents, as builders in good faith, could not be summarily ejected.
• Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law) — Establishes a system of amicably settling disputes at the barangay level as a condition precedent to court action. Applied by the RTC in dismissing the complaint for lack of substantial compliance, given that the parties are very close relatives.
• Rule 42, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review filed before the CA from the RTC's decision in the ejectment case, the very petition that the CA dismissed on procedural grounds.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Requires the certification that the conclusions of the decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion; invoked in the Chief Justice's certification appended to the decision.