[G.R. No. 138497.

January 16, 2002]

IMELDA RELUCIO, respondent.

petitioner,

vs.

ANGELINA

MEJIA

LOPEZ,

DECISION
PARDO, J.:

The Case The case is a petition for review on certiorarii[1] seeking to set aside the decisionii[2] of the Court of Appeals that denied a petition for certiorari assailing the trial courts order denying petitioners motion to dismiss the case against her inclusion as party defendant therein.

The Facts The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
On September 15, 1993, herein private respondent Angelina Mejia Lopez (plaintiff below) filed a petition for APPOINTMENT AS SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF PROPERTIES, FORFEITURE, ETC., against defendant Alberto Lopez and petitioner Imelda Relucio, docketed as Spec. Proc. M3630, in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141. In the petition, privaterespondent alleged that sometime in 1968, defendant Lopez, who is legally married to the private respondent, abandoned the latter and their four legitimate children; that he arrogated unto himself full and exclusive control and administration of the conjugal properties, spending and using the same for his sole gain and benefit to the total exclusion of the private respondent and their four children; that defendant Lopez, after abandoning his family, maintained an illicit relationship and cohabited with herein petitioner since 1976. It was further alleged that defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio, during their period of cohabitation since 1976, have amassed a fortune consisting mainly of stockholdings in Lopez-owned or controlled corporations, residential, agricultural, commercial lots, houses, apartments and buildings, cars and other motor vehicles, bank accounts and jewelry. These properties, which are in the names of defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio singly or jointly or their dummies and proxies, have been acquired principally if not solely through the actual contribution of money, property and industry of defendant Lopez with minimal, if not nil, actual contribution from petitioner Relucio.

In order to avoid defendant Lopez obligations as a father and husband, he excluded the private respondent and their four children from sharing or benefiting from the conjugal properties and the income or fruits there from. As such, defendant Lopez either did not place them in his name or otherwise removed, transferred, stashed away or concealed them from the private-respondent. He placed substantial portions of these conjugal properties in the name of petitioner Relucio. It was also averred that in the past twenty five years since defendant Lopez abandoned the private-respondent, he has sold, disposed of, alienated, transferred, assigned, canceled, removed or stashed away properties, assets and income belonging to the conjugal partnership with the private-respondent and either spent the proceeds thereof for his sole benefit and that of petitioner Relucio and their two illegitimate children or permanently and fraudulently placed them beyond the reach of the private-respondent and their four children. On December 8, 1993, a Motion to Dismiss the Petition was filed by herein petitioner on the ground that private respondent has no cause of action against her. An Order dated February 10, 1994 was issued by herein respondent Judge denying petitioner Relucios Motion to Dismiss on the ground that she is impleaded as a necessary or indispensable party because some of the subject properties are registered in her name and defendant Lopez, or solely in her name. Subsequently thereafter, petitioner Relucio filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Order of the respondent Judge dated February 10, 1994 but the same was likewise denied in the Order dated May 31, 1994.iii[3]

On June 21, 1994, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari assailing the trial courts denial of her motion to dismiss.iv[4] On May 31, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision denying the petition.v[5] On June 26, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.vi[6] However, on April 6, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.vii[7] Hence, this appeal.viii[8]

The Issues
1. Whether respondents petition for appointment as sole administratrix of the conjugal property, accounting, etc. against her husband Alberto J. Lopez established a cause of action against petitioner. 2. Whether petitioners inclusion as party defendant is essential in the proceedings for a complete adjudication of the controversy.ix[9]

The Courts Ruling We grant the petition. We resolve the issues in seriatim. First issue: whether a cause of action exists against petitioner in the proceedings

below. A cause of action is an act or omission of one party the defendant in violation of the legal right of the other.x[10] The elements of a cause of action are:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.xi[11]

A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged facts were admitted or proved.xii[12] In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been merely defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.xiii[13] Hence, to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action alleged in Special Proceedings M-3630, we assay its allegations. In Part Two on the Nature of [the] Complaint, respondent Angelina Mejia Lopez summarized the causes of action alleged in the complaint below. The complaint is by an aggrieved wife against her husband. Nowhere in the allegations does it appear that relief is sought against petitioner. Respondents causes of action were all against her husband. The first cause of action is for judicial appointment of respondent as administratrix of the conjugal partnership or absolute community property arising from her marriage to Alberto J. Lopez. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this cause of action. Article 128 of the Family Code refers only to spouses, to wit:
If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property xxx

The administration of the property of the marriage is entirely between them, to the exclusion of all other persons. Respondent alleges that Alberto J. Lopez is her husband. Therefore, her first cause of action is against Alberto J. Lopez. There is no right-duty relation between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support a cause of action. In fact, none of the three elements of a cause of action exists. The second cause of action is for an accounting by respondent husband. xiv[14] The accounting of conjugal partnership arises from or is an incident of marriage. Petitioner has nothing to do with the marriage between respondent Alberto J. Lopez. Hence, no cause of action can exist against petitioner on this ground. Respondents alternative cause of action is for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez share in the co-owned property acquired during his illicit relationship and cohabitation with

[petitioner]xv[15] and for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between him [Alberto J. Lopez] and the [respondent]. The third cause of action is essentially for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez share in property co-owned by him and petitioner. It does not involve the issue of validity of the co-ownership between Alberto J. Lopez and petitioner. The issue is whether there is basis in law to forfeit Alberto J. Lopez share, if any there be, in property co -owned by him with petitioner. Respondents asserted right to forfeit extends to Alberto J. Lopez share alone. Failure of Alberto J. Lopez to surrender such share, assuming the trial court finds in respondents favor, results in a breach of an obligation to respondent and gives rise to a cause of action.xvi[16] Such cause of action, however, pertains to Alberto J. Lopez, not petitioner. The respondent also sought support. Support cannot be compelled from a stranger. The action in Special Proceedings M-3630 is, to use respondent Angelina M. Lopez own words, one by an aggrieved wife against her husband.xvii[17] References to petitioner in the common and specific allegations of fact in the complaint are merely incidental, to set forth facts and circumstances that prove the causes of action alleged against Alberto J. Lopez. Finally, as to the moral damages, respondents claim for moral damages is against Alberto J. Lopez, not petitioner. To sustain a cause of action for moral damages, the complaint must have the character of an action for interference with marital or family relations under the Civil Code. A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit.xviii[18] In this case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in Special Proceedings M-3630. If petitioner is not a real party in interest, she cannot be an indispensable party. An indispensable party is one without whom there can be no final determination of an action.xix[19] Petitioners participation in Special Proceedings M-3630 is not indispensable. Certainly, the trial court can issue a judgment ordering Alberto J. Lopez to make an accounting of his conjugal partnership with respondent, and give support to respondent and their children, and dissolve Alberto J. Lopez conjugal partnership with respondent, and forfeit Alberto J. Lopez share in property co -owned by him and petitioner. Such judgment would be perfectly valid and enforceable against Alberto J. Lopez. Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special Proceedings M-3630. A necessary party as one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if complete relief is to be accorded those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.xx[20] In the context of her petition in the lower court, respondent would be accorded complete relief if Alberto J. Lopez were ordered to account for his alleged conjugal partnership property with respondent, give support to respondent and her children, turn over his share in the co-ownership with petitioner and dissolve his conjugal partnership or absolute community property with

respondent.

The Judgment WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals. xxi [21] The Court DISMISSES Special Proceedings M-3630 of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 141 as against petitioner. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Land Registration Authority, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 149576 Present: PUNO, J., Chairman, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CORONA, AZCUNA and GARCIA, JJ.

-versus-

KENRICK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

Promulgated: August 8, 2006

x------------------------------------------x DECISION CORONA, J.:

The Republic of the Philippines assails the May 31, 2001 decision1[1] and August 20, 2001 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52948 in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This case stemmed from the construction by respondent Kenrick Development Corporation of a concrete perimeter fence around some parcels of land located behind the Civil Aviation Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) in 1996. As a result, the ATO was dispossessed of some 30,228 square meters of prime land. Respondent justified its action with a claim of ownership over the property. It presented Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 135604, 135605 and 135606 issued in its name and which allegedly originated from TCT No. 17508 registered in the name of one Alfonso Concepcion. ATO verified the authenticity of respondents titles with the Land Registration Authority (LRA). On May 17, 1996, Atty. Jose Loriega, head of the Land Title Verification Task Force of the LRA,

submitted his report. The Registrar of Deeds of Pasay City had no record of TCT No. 17508 and its ascendant title, TCT No. 5450. The land allegedly covered by respondents titles was also found to be within Villamor Air Base (headquarters of the Philippine Air Force) in Pasay City. By virtue of the report, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on September 3, 1996, filed a complaint for revocation, annulment and cancellation of certificates of title in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines (as represented by the LRA) against respondent and Alfonso Concepcion. It was raffled to Branch 114 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-1144. On December 5, 1996, respondent filed its answer which was purportedly signed by Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr. as counsel for respondent. Since Alfonso Concepcion could not be located and served with summons, the trial court ordered the issuance of an alias summons by publication against him on February 19, 1997.

The case was thereafter punctuated by various incidents relative to modes of discovery, pre-trial, postponements or

continuances, motions to dismiss, motions to declare defendants in default and other procedural matters. During the pendency of the case, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and Committee on Justice and Human Rights

conducted a hearing in aid of legislation on the matter of land registration and titling. In particular, the legislative investigation looked into the issuance of fake titles and focused on how respondent was able to acquire TCT Nos. 135604, 135605 and 135606. During the congressional hearing held on November 26, 1998, one of those summoned was Atty. Garlitos, respondents former counsel. He testified that he prepared respondents answer and transmitted an unsigned draft to respondents president, Mr. Victor Ong. The signature appearing above his name was not his. He authorized no one to sign in his behalf either. And he did not know who finally signed it.

With Atty. Garlitos revelation, the Republic promptly filed an urgent motion on December 3, 1998 to declare respondent in default, 2 [2] predicated on its failure to file a valid answer. The Republic argued that, since the person who signed the answer was neither authorized by Atty. Garlitos nor even known to him, the answer was effectively an unsigned pleading. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court,3[3] it was a mere scrap of paper and produced no legal effect. On February 19, 1999, the trial court issued a resolution granting the Republics motion.4[4] It found respondents answer to be sham and false and intended to defeat the purpose of the rules. The trial court ordered the answer stricken from the records, declared respondent in default and allowed the Republic to present its evidence ex parte.

The Republic presented its evidence ex parte, after which it rested its case and formally offered its evidence. Meanwhile, respondent sought reconsideration of the February 19, 1999 resolution but the trial court denied it. Aggrieved, respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari 5 [5] seeking to set aside the February 19, 1999 resolution of the trial court. Respondent contended that the trial court erred in declaring it in default for failure to file a valid and timely answer. On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision. It found Atty. Garlitos statements in the legislative hearing to be unreliable since they were not subjected to crossexamination. The appellate court also scrutinized Atty. Garlitos acts after the filing of the answer6[6] and concluded that he assented to the signing of the answer by somebody in his stead. This

supposedly cured whatever defect the answer may have had. Hence, the appellate court granted respondents petition for certiorari. It directed the lifting of the order of default against respondent and ordered the trial court to proceed to trial with dispatch. The Republic moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Thus, this petition. Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial courts order which declared respondent in default for its failure to file a valid answer? Yes, it did. A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify anothers statement.7[7] Where it appears that a party clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements of another, evidence of those statements is admissible against him.8[8] This is the essence of the principle of adoptive admission.

An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.9[9] By adoptive admission, a third persons statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive admission may occur when a party: (a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another;10[10] (b) (c) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;11[11] utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;12[12]

(d)

replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points which he or she has heard the other make13[13] or

(e)

reads

and

signs

written

statement

made

by

another.14[14] Here, respondent accepted the pronouncements of Atty. Garlitos and built its case on them. At no instance did it ever deny or contradict its former counsels statements. It went to great lengths to explain Atty. Garlitos testimony as well as its implications, as follows: 1. While Atty. Garlitos denied signing the answer, the fact was that the answer was signed. Hence, the pleading could not be considered invalid for being an unsigned pleading. The fact that the person who signed it was neither known to Atty. Garlitos nor specifically

authorized by him was immaterial. The important thing was that the answer bore a signature. 2. While the Rules of Court requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or his counsel, it does not prohibit a counsel from giving a general authority for any person to sign the answer for him which was what Atty. Garlitos did. The person who actually signed the pleading was of no moment as long as counsel knew that it would be signed by another. This was similar to addressing an authorization letter to whom it may concern such that any person could act on it even if he or she was not known beforehand. 3. Atty. Garlitos testified that he prepared the answer; he never disowned its contents and he resumed acting as counsel for respondent subsequent to its filing. These circumstances show that Atty. Garlitos conformed to or ratified the signing of the answer by another. Respondent repeated these statements of Atty. Garlitos in its motion for reconsideration of the trial courts February 19, 1999

resolution. And again in the petition it filed in the Court of Appeals as well as in the comment15[15] and memorandum it submitted to this Court. Evidently, respondent completely adopted Atty. Garlitos statements as its own. Respondents adoptive admission constituted a judicial admission which was conclusive on it. Contrary to respondents position, a signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party himself or his counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on this matter. It requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Therefore, only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. Counsels authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He may not delegate it to just any person.

The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.16[16] Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to these matters. The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer17[17] but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

Moreover, a signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by unqualified persons,18[18] something the law strongly proscribes. Therefore, the blanket authority respondent claims Atty. Garlitos entrusted to just anyone was void. Any act taken pursuant to that authority was likewise void. There was no way it could have been cured or ratified by Atty. Garlitos subsequent acts. Moreover, the transcript of the November 26, 1998 Senate hearing shows that Atty. Garlitos consented to the signing of the answer by another as long as it conformed to his draft. We give no value whatsoever to such self-serving statement. No doubt, Atty. Garlitos could not have validly given blanket authority for just anyone to sign the answer. The trial court correctly ruled that respondents answer was invalid and of no legal effect as it was an unsigned pleading. Respondent was properly declared in default and the Republic was rightly allowed to present evidence ex parte.

Respondent insists on the liberal application of the rules. It maintains that even if it were true that its answer was supposedly an unsigned pleading, the defect was a mere technicality that could be set aside. Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled as mere technicalities have their own valid raison d etre in the orderly administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may result in arbitrariness and injustice.19[19] The Courts pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of Appeals20[20] is relevant:

Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus [enjoined] to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.
21 [21]

In this case, respondent failed to show any

persuasive reason why it should be exempted from strictly abiding by the rules. As a final note, the Court cannot close its eyes to the acts committed by Atty. Garlitos in violation of the ethics of the legal profession. Thus, he should be made to account for his possible misconduct. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The May 31, 2001 decision and August 20, 2001 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52948 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the February 19, 1999 resolution of the Regional Trial Court of

Pasay City, Branch 114 declaring respondent in default is hereby REINSTATED. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the commencement of disbarment proceedings against Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr. for his possible unprofessional conduct not befitting his position as an officer of the court. SO ORDERED. MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, G.R. No. 162924 Present:

CARPIO, J.,* CORONA, - versus Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and

PERALTA, JJ. MARIO TABLANTE, doing business under the name and style ECRM ENTERPRISES; ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LAURIE LITAM; and MC HOME DEPOT, INC., Respondents. Promulgated:

February 4, 2010 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Assailed in the instant petition are the two (2) Resolutions22[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 20, 2003 and March 22, 2004, dismissing the petition for certiorari before it on technical grounds and denying the motion for reconsideration thereof, respectively.

The background facts are as follows:

Petitioner is the registered owner of a piece of land situated in Pasig City, bounded by Meralco Avenue, Ortigas Avenue, Doa Julia Vargas Avenue, and Valle Verde Subdivision. On December 6, 1999, petitioner, represented by its Chairman and President, Ronaldo Salonga, and ECRM Enterprises, represented by its proprietor, Mario P. Tablante, executed an agreement whereby the former would lease to the latter an area, approximately one (1) hectare, of the aforesaid land, for a period of three (3) months, to be used as the staging area for the Home and Garden Exhibition Fair. On March 6, 2000, the date of the expiration of the Lease Agreement, Tablante assigned all his rights and interests under the said agreement to respondents Laurie M. Litam and/or Rockland Construction Company, Inc. (Rockland) under a Deed of Assignment of the same date. Petitioner eventually learned that respondent Tablante had executed a Contract of Lease with respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. on November 26, 1999 over the same parcel of land. Thereafter, respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. constructed improvements on the land and subdivided the area into fifty-nine (59) commercial stalls, which it leased to various entities. Upon the expiration of the lease on March 6, 2000, petitioner demanded that respondents vacate the land. A final demand was made in a letter dated December 20, 2000.23[2]

In order to forestall ejectment from the premises, respondent Rockland filed a case for Specific Performance with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 266, Pasig City, on January 11, 2001, compelling petitioner to execute a new lease contract for another three (3) years, commencing in July 2000. This was docketed as Civil Case No. 68213. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was anticipatory in nature.

Consequently, on August 22, 2001, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 8788 for unlawful detainer against herein respondents, raffled to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Pasig City, Branch 70. Simultaneously, petitioner filed a supplemental motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 68213, on the ground of litis pendentia. Petitioners motion to dismiss was denied. The denial was questioned and eventually elevated to the Supreme Court.24[3]

Meantime, on April 29, 2002, the MTC rendered judgment in the unlawful detainer (ejectment) case. In the main, the trial court ruled that the issue did not involve material or physical possession, but rather, whether or not ECRM had the right to exercise an option to renew its lease contract. The MTC stated that, considering that this issue was incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction over the case was vested in the RTC. The trial court, therefore, disposed, as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. In the meantime, the plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay the defendants attorneys fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00).25[4]

On appeal, the RTC, Pasig City, Branch 160, affirmed in toto. In its decision dated July 10, 2003, the RTC ruled that:

Relative to the issue raised by the appellant that the lower court erred in finding it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case as the question of whether or not ECRM under the provisions of the lease agreement (pars. 3 and 13) has the right to exercise an option to renew its lease contract is one incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore jurisdiction is vested in the Regional Trial Court. Republic Act No. 7691 grants Metropolitan Trial Courts the exclusive jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Since it has been sufficiently established under the facts obtaining that the contract of lease has been renewed before the expiration of the lease period, and the appellant has consented to the renewal and assignment of the lease, it necessarily follows that the issue on whether the lower court erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter raised by the appellant, deserves scant consideration and this court need not delve into it anymore.26[5]

A petition for certiorari was consequently filed with the CA.

In the assailed resolution dated November 20, 2003, the CA resolved to dismiss the petition on the following grounds:

The verification and certification against non-forum shopping was signed by a certain Antonio A. Merelos as General Manager of the petitionercorporation without attaching therewith a Corporate Secretarys certificate or board resolution that he is authorized to sign for and on behalf of the petitioner; and

1)

2) Lack of pertinent and necessary documents which are material portions of the record as required by Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.27[6]

The motion for reconsideration was denied;28[7] hence, the instant petition assigning the following errors:

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING IN THE PETITION FAILED TO ATTACH THE BOARD RESOLUTION SHOWING THE AUTHORITY OF THE AFFIANT.

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITION LACKED THE PERTINENT AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE RULES.

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION THUS EFFECTIVELY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TO WIT: (a) THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS UNILATERALLY RENEWED AND THAT PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING SUCH UNILATERAL RENEWAL; (b) THAT RESPONDENTS TABLANTE/ECRM, ROCKLAND AND MC HOME DEPOT COULD VALIDLY OCCUPY THE PROPERTY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID LEASE AGREEMENT CONSENTED TO BY PETITIONER; (c) PETITIONER *IS+ LIABLE FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT.29[8]

The petition is granted.

In Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,30[9] the Court had occasion to explain that:

It must be borne in mind that Sec. 23, in relation to Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code, clearly enunciates that all corporate powers are exercised, all business conducted, and all properties controlled by the board of directors. A corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its directors and officers and can only exercise its corporate powers through the board of directors. Thus, it is clear that an individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation without authority from the board of directors. This has been our constant holding in cases instituted by a corporation.

In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the authority of some corporate officers to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA, we recognized the authority of a general manager or acting general manager to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping; x x x.

In sum, we have held that the following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.

While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of authorized signatories to the verification and certification required by the rules, the determination of the sufficiency of the authority was done on a case to case basis. The rationale applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the authority of corporate officers or representatives of the corporation to sign the verification or certificate against forum shopping, being in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.31[10]

From the foregoing, it is thus clear that the failure to attach the Secretarys Certificate, attesting to General Manager Antonio Mereloss authority to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, should not be considered fatal to the filing of the petition. Nonetheless, the requisite board resolution was subsequently submitted to the CA, together with the pertinent documents.32[11]

Considering that petitioner substantially complied with the rules, the dismissal of the petition was, therefore, unwarranted. Time and again, we have emphasized that dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense for they have been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. For this reason, courts must proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of statutory appeal; rather, they must ensure that all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for the proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from the constraint of technicalities.33[12]

After a finding that the CA erred in dismissing the petition before it, a remand of the case is in order. However, a perusal of the records reveals that this is no longer necessary in light of relevant developments obtaining in the case at bar.

Petitioner, in its Memorandum dated October 28, 2005, alleged that respondents possessory claims had lapsed and, therefore, had become moot and academic. Respondent Rockland prayed that a three-year lease period be granted to it in order that it would be able to plan its activities more efficiently. Since the claimed lease contract had already expired as of July or August 2003, there

appears no reason why respondents should continue to have any claim to further possession of the property.34[13]

Respondent Rockland also stated in its Memorandum dated March 16, 2006 that it was no longer in possession of the subject property considering that:

50. In a Resolution dated 17 September 2004, in the case of Rockland Construction Company, Inc. vs. Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation, et al., docketed as SCA No. 2673, and the Omnibus Order dated 12 November 2004, affirming the aforesaid Resolution, Branch 67 Pasig City Regional Trial Court Presiding Judge Mariano M. Singzon awarded possession (albeit erroneously) of subject property to Pasig Printing Corporation, an intervenor in the SCA case.

51. At present, petitioner does not have a cause of action against herein respondent Rockland. Respondent is not unlawfully withholding possession of the property in question as in fact respondent is not in possession of the subject property. The issue of possession in this ejectment case has therefore been rendered moot and academic.35[14]

This allegation was confirmed by respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. in its Comment/Memorandum dated May 22, 2007 submitted to the Court. It stated therein that the passage of time has rendered the issue of possession moot and

academic with respect to respondent Rockland, as the three-year period has long been expired in 2003.36[15] Furthermore, respondent MC Home Depot, Inc. asserts that it is in rightful possession of the land on the strength of a Memorandum of Agreement dated November 22, 2004 between the latter and Pasig Printing Corporation. By petitioners admission that while it remains the registered owner of the land, possession of the same had been adjudicated in favor of Pasig Printing Corporation, another entity without any contractual relationship with petitioner, on the strength of an Order from the RTC of Pasig City. Considering that Pasig Printing Corporation has the jus possessionis over the subject property, it granted the MC Home Depot, Inc. actual occupation and possession of the subject property for a period of four (4) years, renewable for another four (4) years upon mutual agreement of the parties.37[16]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, in view of the developments which have rendered the issue of the right of possession over the subject property moot and academic, the main case is hereby considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 94093 August 10, 1993 FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., LUIS R. TABUENA, JR. and RAMON A. TABUENA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, respondents. Minerva C. genevea for petitioners. Sabino B. Padilla IV for Bank of the Philippines Islands. MELO, J.: This has reference to a petition for review by certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 26, 1990, in CA-G.R. CV No. 14404 (Bellosillo (P), Marigomen, Sempio-Diy, JJ.) which set aside the order of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region (Manila, Branch XIV), dated June 1, 1987 and remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings on the grounds that the complaint for foreclosure of chattel mortgage with replevin had not prescribed and that, there being a cause of action, further proceedings, including the resolution of the motion for summary judgment may be pursued. The antecedent facts of the case may be chronicled as follows: On February 5, 1987, herein respondent Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) filed a complaint for foreclosure of chattel mortgage with replevin against petitioner Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. (Far East), Ramon A. Tabuena and Luis R. Tabuena, Jr. which was docketed as Civil Case No. 87-39345 of Branch XIV of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Manila. The complaint pertinently alleged: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FAR EAST 2. That on various dates and for valuable consideration, the defendant Far East received from Commercial Bank and Trust Company . . . now merged with and into the plaintiff bank . . . several loans evidenced by promissory notes executed by said Far East, photo copies of which are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes A, B and C. 3. That said promissory notes . . . .have long matured but despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof with interests and related charges due, Far East has failed and refused to pay. The account due on said promissory notes with interests and related charges as of 10 September 1986 is P4,471,854.32 itemized in a statement of account, copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Annex D 4. That because of Far East's failure and refusal in bad faith to pay its long past due obligations under the promissory notes above alleged, plaintiff was constrained to file this suit . . .

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FAR EAST 6. That on various dates and for valuable consideration, the defendant Far East received from and was extended by . . . plaintiff Bank . . . credit facilities in the form of Trust Receipts, photo copies of which are hereto attached and made integral parts hereof as Annexes E, F, G, H, I and J. 7. That said Trust Receipts . . . have long matured and despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof with interests and related charges due Far East has failed and refused to pay. The amount due on said Trust Receipts with interests and related charges as of 10 September 1986 is P2,170,476.62 as itemized in a statement of account, copy of which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex K. 8. That because of far East's failure and refusal to pay its long past due obligations under the Trust Receipts above alleged, plaintiff was constrained to file this suit . . . xxx xxx xxx 10. That in September 1976 Far East executed in favor of . . . plaintiff Bank . . . a Chattel Mortgage, photocopy of which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex L, to secure the payment of its loan obligations including interests and related charges. . . xxx xxx xxx CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS RAMON A. TABUENA AND LUIS R. TABUENA, JR. 13. That in September 1976, defendants Ramon A. Tabuena and Luis R. Tabuena, Jr. executed in favor of . . . plaintiff Bank . . . a "continuing guaranty" photocopy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Annex M, whereby they bind themselves, jointly and severally, to answer for the loan obligations to the Bank of defendant Far East. 14. That despite requests and demands for their payment of Far East's long past due accounts, said defendants Ramon A. Tabuena and Luis R. Tabuena, Jr. have failed and refused to pay said Far East accounts and have already defaulted in their solidary obligation under said "continuing Guaranty." 15. That because of the failure and refusal of defendants Ramon A. Tabuena and Luis R. Tabuena, Jr. in bad faith to pay Far East's past due accounts under their solidary obligation stipulated in said "Continuing Guaranty,". . . plaintiff has been constrained to file suit against them . . . (pp. 32-36, Rollo.) On March 10, 1987, Far East filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim admitting the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes attached as Annexes A, B, and C to the complaint, but alleging further that said notes became due and demandable on November 19, 1976, respectively. On the basis of the maturity dates of the notes, Far East thereupon raised the

affirmative defenses of prescription and lack of cause of action as it denied the allegation of the complaint that BPI had made previous repeated requests and demands for payment. Far East claimed that during the more than 10 years which elapsed from the dates of maturity of said obligations up to the time the action for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage securing said obligations was filed, it had not received from BPI or its predecessor any demand for payment and thus, it had "labored under the belief that they [the obligations] have already been written off" in the books of BPI. Moreover, Far East denied the genuineness and due execution of the trust receipts and of the Statement of Account (pp. 78-79, Rollo). A motion to hear affirmative defenses was attached to the answer. On March 16, 1987, BPI filed an opposition to the motion to hear affirmative defenses, alleging that its cause of action against Far East have not prescribed, since within 10 years from the time its cause of action accrued, various written extrajudicial demands (attached thereto as Annexes "A" and "A-1") were sent by BPI and received by Far East. Moreover, BPI offered several written documents whereby Far East supposedly acknowledged its debt to BPI (Annexes "B" to "B-6). Withal, BPI maintained, the ten-years prescriptive period to enforce its written contract had not only been interrupted, but was renewed. On the same date, BPI filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that since Far East had admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes and the deed of chattel mortgage annexed to its complaint, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, thus entitling BPI to a favorable judgment as a matter of law in regard to its causes of action and on its right to foreclose the chattel mortgage. On June 1, 1987, the trial court issued an order to the following effect: WHEREFORE, the Court issues this Order: 1 Dismissing the complaint against the defendant Far East Marble (Phils.) Inc. for lack of cause of action and on grounds of pre[s]cription: 2 Denying for lack of merit the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment; 3 Striking off from the records the order of March 6, 1987 and recalling the writ of replevin issued by this Court, and dismissing all the contempt charges; 4 Ordering the Sheriff to desist permanently from enforcing the writ of seizure and to return all the property seized by him under the Writ of Replevin, to the defendant Far East Marble (Phils.) Inc. immediately from receipt of a copy of this order, and in case of his failure to do so, the value thereof shall be charged against the replevin bond. (pp. 89-90, Rollo.) An appeal therefrom was forthwith interposed by BPI, assailing the findings of the trial court with respect to its finding that BPI's cause of action has prescribed and the consequent denial of the motion for summary judgment. On June 26, 1990, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision setting aside the June 1, 1987 order of the court of origin and remanding the case to said court for further proceedings, "including the resolution anew of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment . . ., reception of the evidence of the parties and, thereafter, to decide the case as the facts may warrant." (pp. 98-99, Rollo.)

Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari filed by Far East, anchored on the following assigned errors: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT PRESCRIPTION HAS SET IN OBLIVIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THIS FINDING WAS REACHED AFTER DUE HEARING. II THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING FOR A REOPENING OF THE TRIAL FOR THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE ON BOTH ISSUES OF PRESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN THESE WERE ALREADY TRIED AND WEIGHED BY THE TRIAL COURT. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE CONSIDERING THAT THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN INVOLVE PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW. (p. 14, Rollo.) The issue of jurisdiction being basis, we shall endeavor to dispose of it ahead of the other topics raised by petitioners Petitioner Far East maintains the position that the Court of Appeals stepped beyond the limits of its authority when it assumed jurisdiction over the appeal filed by BPI inasmuch as said appeal raised only the pure questions of law or whether or not the trial court erred: (1) in dismissing BPI's complaint for lack of cause of action; (2) in finding that BPI's cause of action had prescribed; and (3) in ruling that BPI is not entitled to summary judgment on its causes of action against Far East. Consequently, Far East contends, BPI should have taken its case directly to this Court. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that when an appeal raises only pure questions of law, it is only this Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the same (Article VIII, Section 5 (2) (e), 1987 Constitution; Rule 45, Rules of Court; see also Santos, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 152 SCRA 378 [1987]). On the other hand, appeals involving both questions of law and fact fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. At this point, there seems to be a need to distinguish a question of law from a question of fact. It has been held in a number of cases (Medina vs. Asistio, Jr., 191 SCRA 218 [1990]; Gan vs. Licup Design Group, Inc., G.R. NO. 94264, July 24, 1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Pilar Development Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 146 SCRA 215 [1986]; Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 19 SCRA 289 [1967]; Consolidated Mines, Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., 58 SCRA 618 [1974]), that there is a "question of law" when there is doubt or difference of opinion as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.

In the case at bar, BPI alleged in its complaint (Rollo, p. 42) that on various dates and for valuable consideration, it extended to Far East several loans, evidenced by promissory notes, and credit facilities in the form of trust receipts, and that despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof, Far East had failed and refused to pay. Thus BPI sought foreclosure of the chattel mortgage securing such indebtedness. In its answer (Rollo, p. 78), Far East admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes involved in the case, but denied BPI's allegation that repeated demands for payment were made by BPI on it. Far East then raised the affirmative defenses of prescription and lack of cause of action, arguing that since the promissory notes matured in 1976 while BPI filed its action to foreclose the chattel mortgage only in 1987 (or more than 10 years from the time its cause of action accrued), and there being no demand for payment which would interrupt the period of prescription for instituting said action, BPI's claims have prescribed. BPI, however, countered that its allegation of repeated demands on Far East for payment sufficiently stated a cause of action; that within ten years from the time its cause of action accrued in 1976, it sent written extrajudicial demands on Far East requesting payment of its due and outstanding obligations; that within that 10-years period, it received written acknowledgments of debt from Far East; and, that these demands for payment and acknowledgments of debt effectively interrupted and renewed the prescriptive period. Worth noting is the fact that the acknowledgment of debt and the demands for payment, including the affidavits of BPI's counsel who prepared the demand letter and that of BPI's messenger who allegedly personally delivered said letters to Far East were duly annexed to BPI's pleadings. From the foregoing exchange of pleading, the conflicting allegations of fact by the contending parties sprung forth. It is thus quite obvious that the controversy centered on, and the doubt arose with respect to, the very existence of previous demands for payment allegedly made by BPI on petitioner Far East, receipt of which was denied by the latter. This dispute or controversy inevitably raised a question of fact. Such being the case, the appeal taken by BPI to the Court of Appeals was proper. We now come to petitioner's first two assigned errors. The trial court's finding that BPI's claims due to prescription, can no longer prosper, is inextricably connected with, and underpinned by, its other conclusion that BPI's allegation that it made "repeated requests and demands for payment" is not sufficient to state a cause of action. Moreover, in its questioned Order (Rollo, p. 88) dated June 1, 1987, the trial court held that: Apart from the fact that the complaint failed to allege that the period of prescription was interrupted, the phrase "repeated requests and demands for payment" is vague and incomplete as to establish in the minds of the defendant, or to enable the Court to draw a conclusion, that demands or acknowledgment [of debt] were made that could have interrupted the period of prescription. (p. 88, Rollo.). Seemingly, therefore, the trial court believed that the interruption of the prescriptive period to institute an action is an ULTIMATE FACT which had to be expressly and indispensably pleaded by BPI in its complaint, and that failure to so alleged such circumstance is fatal to BPI's cause of action. We believe and hold otherwise. Section 3 of Rule 6 state that a "complaint is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause or causes of action." Further elaborating thereon, Section 1 of Rule 8 declares that every pleading, including, of course, a complaint, "shall contain in a methodical and logical form,

a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts . . . omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts." "Ultimate facts" are the essential and substantial facts which either form the basis of the primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant (Tantuico, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., et al., 204 SCRA 428 [1991]), while "evidentiary facts" are those which tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts. What then are the ultimate facts which BPI had to allege in its complaint so as to sufficiently establish its cause of action? Basically, a cause of action consists of three elements, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right (Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 193 SCRA 732 [1991]); Rebollido vs. Court of Appeals et al., 170 SCRA 800 [1989]). These elements are manifest in BPI's complaint, particularly when it was therein alleged that: (1) for valuable consideration, BPI granted several loans, evidenced by promissory notes, and extended credit facilities in the form of trust receipts to Far East (photocopies of said notes and receipts were duly attached to the Complaint); (2) said promissory notes and trust receipts had matured; and (3) despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof, Far East had failed and refused to pay. Clearly then, the general allegation of BPI that "despite repeated requests and demands for payment, Far East has failed to pay" is sufficient to establish BPI's cause of action. Besides, prescription is not a cause of action; it is a defense which, having been raised, should, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals (DBP vs. Ozarraga, 15 SCRA 48 [1965]), be supported by competent evidence. But even as Far East raised the defense of prescription, BPI countered to the effect that the prescriptive period was interrupted and renewed by written extrajudicial demands for payment and acknowledgment by Far East of the debt. A complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient notice of the cause of action even though the allegation may be vague or indefinite, for in such case, the recourse of the defendant would be to file a motion for a bill of particulars (Ramos vs. Condez, 20 SCRA 1146 [1967]). It is indeed the better rule that, pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be liberally construed so that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims so as to avoid possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities (Adamo, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 191 SCRA 195 [1990]). In the case at bar, the circumstances of BPI extending loans and credits to Far East and the failure of the latter to pay and discharge the same upon maturity are the only ultimate facts which have to be pleaded, although the facts necessary to make the mortgage valid enforceable must be proven during the trial (Ortiz v. Garcia, 15 Phil. 192 [1910]). In fine, the finding of the trial court that prescription has set in is primarily premised on a misappreciation of the sufficiency of BPI's allegation as above discussed. The records will show that the hearing conducted by the trial court was merely pro forma and the trial judge did not sufficiently address the issue of whether or not a demand for payment in fact made by BPI and duly received by herein petitioner Far East. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals hereby AFFIRMED. No special pronouncement is made as to costs. SO ORDERED.