Fernandez v. Villegas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lourdes C. Fernandez and her sister, Cecilia Siapno, filed a complaint for ejectment against respondent Norma Villegas and her family. They claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Dagupan City, on which both Lourdes and the respondents had resided. Following a typhoon that destroyed their house, Lourdes moved to a temporary shelter on the lot, while respondents were allowed to use a portion. Respondents subsequently erected their own house on the property despite objections and demands to vacate. Respondents contested the ejectment, asserting that Lourdes had donated her portion of the property to Cecilia and that Cecilia had acknowledged the property belonged to Norma's late husband. They also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation process. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the respondents to vacate the property and pay monthly compensation, attorney's fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on the grounds of non-compliance with barangay conciliation and the respondents' status as builders in good faith. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed this petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Lourdes C. Fernandez filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of her petition for review under Rule 42. The CA had dismissed the petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, as only Lourdes, one of the co-plaintiffs, had signed them without explicit authorization from her co-plaintiff, Cecilia. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing the petition, asserting that her lone signature constituted substantial compliance with the rules, given her co-ownership and common interest with Cecilia in the subject property, and that Article 487 of the Civil Code allows a co-owner to bring an ejectment suit without joining all co-owners.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping. Whether Lourdes C. Fernandez, as a co-owner, could file the ejectment case and the petition for review by herself; and whether the lone signature of Lourdes C. Fernandez on the verification and certification against forum shopping constituted substantial compliance. Whether the failure to file an amended verification and certification, as directed by the CA Resolution, should have warranted the dismissal of the petition, given substantial compliance at the outset.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 22, 2011 and December 28, 2011 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REINSTATED and REMANDED to the CA for proper and immediate disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of defective verification and certification against forum shopping: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition outright. The Court reiterated its guidelines on non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping. Regarding verification, it stated that non-compliance or a defect does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective and the court may order its correction or waive strict compliance in the interest of justice. Verification is substantially complied with when the signatory has ample knowledge of the allegations and the matters alleged are made in good faith. As Lourdes is a co-owner and resident of the property, she possessed ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, thus constituting substantial compliance. On the issue of Lourdes C. Fernandez filing the case as a co-owner and substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping: The Court found that there was also substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement. It explained that under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, such as when petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action, the rule requiring all parties to sign the certification may be relaxed. In this case, Lourdes and Cecilia, as co-plaintiffs in the ejectment suit, shared a common interest and cause of action. Therefore, Lourdes' lone signature substantially complied with the rule. The Court emphasized that the rules on forum shopping are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted to subvert their objectives, allowing for substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. On the failure to file an amended verification and certification: Given that there was substantial compliance with the procedural requirements at the outset, the Court ruled that the subsequent failure to file an amended verification and certification, as directed by the CA Resolution, should not have warranted the dismissal of the petition. The Court reasoned that the primary objective of these rules is to ensure the truthfulness of the allegations and to prevent forum shopping, which were substantially met by Lourdes' actions.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with or a defect in the verification of a pleading does not necessarily render it fatally defective and may be corrected or waived by the court in the interest of justice. Similarly, substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement is permissible under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, particularly when petitioners share a common interest and cause of action, allowing the relaxation of the rule requiring all parties to sign.