CAVILE v.

CAVILE
April 1, 2003 | Puno, J. | Pleadings Complaint (Individuals)
Digester: Santos, Ihna
SUMMARY: Petition for review of the decision of the CA reversing
the decision of RTC Dumaguete for partition and accounting of the
properties of Bernardo Cavile. Respondents are assailing the
validity of the petition for review filed by petitioners since the
certification against forum shopping attached to said petition was
signed only by 1 of the petitioners. However, the SC ruled that the
signing of one of the petitioners on the certificate was a
substantial compliance with the rule on certification against forum
shopping on the part of the petitioners. All the petitioners, being
relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a
common interest thereon. They also share a common defense in
the complaint for partition filed by the respondents. Thus, when
they filed the instant petition, they filed it as a collective, raising
only one argument to defend their rights over the properties in
question.
DOCTRINE: 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 ultimate and
legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be
availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is
because 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. It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance
with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
FACTS:
Bernardo Cavile contracted 3 marriages: 1st with Ines Dumat-ol
(w/ 1 child: Simplicia), 2nd with Orfia Colalho (w/ 2 children:
Fortunato & Vevencia), and 3rd with Tranquilina Galon (w/ 3
children: Castor, Susana & Benedicta). Through his lifetime,
Bernardo acquired 6 parcels of land, which became the subject
of this case.
In October 1977, descendants of Bernardo from 1st and 2nd
marriages (herein respondents) filed a complaint for partition

against the descendants of his 3rd marriage (herein

petitioners). The complaint alleged, among others, that
respondents and petitioners were co-owners of the properties
in question, having inherited the same from Bernardo. Upon
the death of Bernardo, his son Castor took possession of the
properties as administrator for and in behalf of his co-owners.
However, when Castor died, his children took possession of the
parcels of land but no longer as administrators. They claimed
the properties as well as their fruits as their own and
repeatedly refused respondents demand for partition.
Petitioners failed to file an answer within the reglementary
period so they were declared in default and respondents were
allowed to present evidence ex parte.
RTC rendered a decision ordering the partition of the 6 parcels
of land. However, upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and Quirino
Cavili who were not properly served with summons, RTC held a
new trial and allowed said parties to present evidence. Among
the evidence they proferred was a Deed of Partition which
appeared to have been executed by the heirs of Bernardo.
Giving weight to this documentary evidence, RTC rendered
another decision dismissing the complaint for partition.
On appeal, CA reversed RTCs decision, holding that the RTC
erred in admitting the Deed of Partition as evidence without
proof of its authenticity and due execution. It held that said
Deed cannot be considered as an ancient document whose
authenticity and due execution need not be proved as the
respondents have presented evidence that cast doubt on its
authenticity and due execution. CA thus directed RTC to
expeditiously effect the partition and accounting of the subject
properties in accordance with Rule 69, ROC. Hence, this
petition.

RULING: Petition granted. CA decision set aside and RTC

Dumaguete decision reinstated.
Whether the petition violates the rule on certification
against forum shopping required to be attached to petitions
for review filed with SC (because the certification against
forum shopping attached to the petition was signed by only
1 of the petitioners) NO, there was substantial compliance
with the Rules
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 Court has also stressed that 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 ultimate
and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance
may be availed of with respect to the contents of the
certification. This is because 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. It does not thereby
interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under
justifiable circumstances.
In this case, 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 thereon. They also share a
common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the
respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they
filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend
their rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient
basis, therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and
in behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not filed any
action or claim involving the same issues in another court or

tribunal, nor is there other pending action or claim in another

court or tribunal involving the same issues.
Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the substantive
aspects of the case may be deemed as special circumstance for
the Court to take cognizance of a petition for review although
the certification against forum shopping was executed and
signed by only one of the petitioners.

NOTES: [substantive]
RTC was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition, it
appearing that the lawful heirs of Bernardo have already
divided the properties among themselves, as evidenced by the
Deed of Partition.
The Deed of Partition was acknowledged before Notary Public
Iluminado Golez 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. To overcome the
presumption, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing
and more than merely preponderant. Absent such evidence, the
presumption must be upheld. In this case, the respondents
failed to overcome the presumption of regularity.