Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

Civpro Digest - Pleadings

1) Bernardo Cavile had three marriages and six parcels of land that were disputed by his heirs. 2) In 1977, descendants of his first and second marriages filed a complaint for partition against descendants of his third marriage. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the certification against forum shopping signed by only one petitioner was sufficient, as all the petitioners shared a common interest in defending their rights to the disputed properties. It was therefore in substantial compliance with the rules.

Uploaded by

Jei Essa Almias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views2 pages

Civpro Digest - Pleadings

1) Bernardo Cavile had three marriages and six parcels of land that were disputed by his heirs. 2) In 1977, descendants of his first and second marriages filed a complaint for partition against descendants of his third marriage. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the certification against forum shopping signed by only one petitioner was sufficient, as all the petitioners shared a common interest in defending their rights to the disputed properties. It was therefore in substantial compliance with the rules.

Uploaded by

Jei Essa Almias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GR No.

148635 April 1, 2003


Cavile
v.
Heirs of Clarita Cavile
Puno, J.
Facts:
Bernardo Cavile contracted 3 marriages and acquired 6 parcels of
land now being disputed1. Ines Dumat-ol 1 child (Simplicia)2.
OrfiaColalho 2 children (Fortunato and Vevencia)3. TranquilinaGalon
3 children (Castor, Susana and Benedicta) Oct 1977 descendants of his
1st and 2nd marriage (herein respondents) filed a complaint for partition
against the descendants of his 3rd marriage (herein petitioners).
They are co-owners of the properties in question having inherited
them from Bernardo- Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by 3rd
marriage (Castor) took possession of the properties as administrator for
and in behalf of his co-owners- When Castor died, his children took
possession of the land but no longer as administrators. They claimed the
properties and their fruits as their own and repeatedly refused
respondents demand for partition.
Among the evidence proferred was a notarized Deed of Partition
executed by the heirs of Bernardo Cavile in 1937. Trial court dismissed
the petition for partition. Upon appeal, CA reversed the decision saying
the trial court erred in admitting the Deed of Partition as evidence without
proof of its authenticity and due execution. Hence, this petition. The
respondents pray for the denial of the petition on two grounds: it violates
the rule on the certification against forum shopping; and the CA did not
commit any error in its assailed decision. The respondents harp on the fact
that only one of the 22 petitioners, Thomas George Cavile, Sr. executed
and signed the certification against forum shopping when the Rules
require that said certification must be signed by all the petitioners.
Issue:
Was the certification against forum shopping signed by only one of
the petitioners sufficient to meet the Rules? Yes
Ruling:
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be
signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only
one of them is insufficient. However, 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 and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial
compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the
certification.The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions
regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its
mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed
with or its requirements completely disregarded.
The execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the
other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes
substantial compliance with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives
and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest, and
share a common defense in the complaint for partition. When they filed
the petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to
defend their rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis
for Thomas George Cavile to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners.
The trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition, it
appearing that the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavile have already divided
the properties among themselves, as evidenced by the Deed of Partition.
The document (Deed of Partition) speaks for itself. It was
acknowledged before the Notary Public and recorded in his notarial book.
Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents
which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof
as to their authenticity and due execution. They enjoy the presumption of
regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The
respondents failed to overcome the presumption of regularity.The
properties left by Bernardo Cavile have already been partitioned among
his heirs.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned
Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

You might also like