Docena v. Lapesura
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Casiano Hombria against petitioners Antonio and Alfreda Docena for the recovery of a parcel of land they had leased. The petitioners claimed ownership based on immemorial occupation. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ordering the Docenas to vacate the leased land, excluding a portion reclaimed from the sea, and to pay back rentals. The appellate court's decision became final and executory. Procedural History: Following the finality of the Court of Appeals' decision, Hombria filed a motion for execution. The trial court granted this motion, issuing a writ of execution. However, the sheriff sought clarification due to defects in the commissioner's report and attached sketches. The trial court, in a resolution, directed the sheriff to proceed with the execution, excluding the reclaimed portion as shown in the report. The petitioners then filed a motion to set aside or defer the demolition writ, which was denied. They were granted an extension to file a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently filed but also denied. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's orders and the sheriff's writ. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' resolutions that dismissed their Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. The Court of Appeals had dismissed the petition on two grounds: (1) it was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65, and (2) the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners. The petitioners argued that their petition was timely filed and that the certification of non-forum shopping, signed by the husband alone, constituted substantial compliance, especially given the nature of the property as conjugal and the circumstances of the parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated June 18, 1999 and September 9, 1999 are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition: The Supreme Court held that the petition was timely filed. Citing A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reiterated that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition is counted from the notice of the denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration. In this case, the petitioners received the denial of their motion for reconsideration on May 4, 1999. Therefore, the petition filed on June 14, 1999, was well within the 60-day reglementary period. The Court emphasized that procedural laws, like the said Resolution, are applicable to pending cases and their retroactive application does not violate vested rights. The Court clarified that the period should be reckoned from the receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, not from the receipt of the earlier order. On the sufficiency of the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: The Supreme Court found substantial compliance with the rules regarding the certification of non-forum shopping, despite it being signed by only one of the two petitioners, Antonio Docena. The Court reasoned that the property in dispute was conjugal, and under the New Civil Code, the husband is the statutory administrator of the conjugal partnership and may defend it in suits without the wife's joinder. Even under the Family Code, where administration is joint, each spouse can exercise full power of management alone. The Court further presumed that the husband had personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing of similar actions by his wife, given the nature of legal proceedings involving real property. Considering the conjugal nature of the property, the origin of the case, and the practical difficulties of the wife's presence, a rigid application of the rule would be too harsh and uncalled for. The Court stressed that rules on forum shopping should not be interpreted so literally as to subvert the objective of orderly administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the petition for certiorari and prohibition was timely filed, as the 60-day period should be reckoned from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the Court found substantial compliance with the requirement for a certification of non-forum shopping, even though it was signed by only one of the two petitioners, considering the conjugal nature of the property and the husband's role as statutory administrator.