Cavile v.

Heirs of Clarita Cavile

GR No. 148635 April 1, 2003
Puno, J.

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

Doctrine: The execution by one of the petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping
constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules where all the petitioners, being relatives
and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest.

Facts:

 Bernardo Cavile – contracted 3 marriages and acquired 6 parcels of land now being
disputed
1. Ines Dumat-ol – 1 child (Simplicia)
2. Orfia Colalho – 2 children (Fortunato and Vevencia)
3. Tranquilina Galon – 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 3 rd marriage (herein
petitioners).
Allegation:
- They are co-owners of the properties in question having inherited
them from Bernardo
- Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by 3 rd 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.