Celino v. Heirs of Santiago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, filed an action for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, and Damages against petitioner Daniel Celino, alleging encroachment upon their properties. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting Juliet Santiago's lack of legal capacity to sue and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court denied this, deferring resolution to trial. During pre-trial, Juliet Santiago presented Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) from co-plaintiffs authorizing counsel to represent them. Petitioner later filed a Demurrer to Evidence, again questioning Juliet Santiago's authority to sue. The trial court denied this, finding that Juliet Santiago had submitted the necessary authorization. Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari, holding that lack of legal capacity to sue is not a ground for demurrer to evidence. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, raising issues regarding the propriety of a demurrer to evidence for lack of authority to sue and the dismissal of the complaint for failure to execute a certification against non-forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 of the Revised Rules of Court may be resorted to when a co-plaintiff clearly has no authority to sue for and in behalf of her co-plaintiffs. Whether the complaint may be dismissed for failure of co-plaintiffs to execute and sign the certification against non-forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 28 October 2002 and the Resolution dated 14 January 2004 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of a demurrer to evidence for lack of authority to sue: A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of evidence presented by the plaintiff, pertaining to the merits of the case. Lack of legal capacity to sue is a technical aspect and not a ground contemplated by the Rules of Court for a demurrer to evidence. The evidence presented by the plaintiff must be evaluated on its merits, not on procedural deficiencies that can be cured or are not grounds for demurrer. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied the demurrer to evidence, as the issue of Juliet Santiago's authority to sue was a matter of legal capacity, not evidentiary sufficiency on the merits of the case. The Court of Appeals correctly held that this was not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence. On the dismissal for failure to execute a certification against non-forum shopping: The Court held that the complaint may not be dismissed on this ground. Respondents are co-owners of the properties in question. As co-owners, each heir may properly bring an action for recovery of possession for the benefit of all co-owners, even without joining all of them as co-plaintiffs, as the suit is deemed instituted for the benefit of the entire co-ownership. The complaint clearly aimed to recover possession of properties owned in common, which would redound to the benefit of all co-owners. Juliet Santiago, in verifying the complaint, claimed to be acting as a co-owner and representative of the other plaintiffs, thus validating the action. Furthermore, the procedural history showed that petitioner raised the issue of authority to sue early on but failed to pursue it via a petition for certiorari within the reglementary period, rendering his subsequent actions procedurally infirm.
Main Doctrine
A demurrer to evidence, which pertains to the merits of the case, is not a proper ground for lack of legal capacity to sue, which is a technical aspect. Furthermore, a co-owner may file an action for recovery of possession for the benefit of all co-owners, even without joining all co-owners as co-plaintiffs, provided the action is for the benefit of the co-ownership.