34 – 

Gloria and Yduan v. Builders Savings & Loan Assoc., Inc. 

G.R. No. 202324, 4 June 2018 
THESIS STATEMENT 
 Petitioners filed before the RTC a Complaint against Respondent for declaration of null and void real
estate mortgage, promissory note, and cancellation of notation in the TCT. 
FACTS 
 Petitioners are registered owners of a parcel of land in Kamuning, QC covered by TCT No. 35814. 
 Subject land was used as a mortgaged for a loan and later it was foreclosed and sold at an auction to
Respondents. 
CONCHITA GLORIA & MA. BUILDERS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. 
LOURDES GLORIA-PAYDUAN   Lourdes had neither capacity to sue nor authority and
 Claims that Benildo Biag deceived them interest to file the case a quo. 
into surrendering TCT No. 35814 and was  Conchita was a retired public-school teacher who
fraudulently made to sign loan and could not be cajoled to execute a real estate mortgage on
mortgage documents.  her property against her will. 
 Respondents conspired with Benildo
Biag in the execution of the forged loan &
mortgaged documents. 
RULING OF THE LOWER COURT 
 RTC ruled in favor of the Petitioners. 
 It declared the real estate mortgage as null and void. 
RULING OF THE APPELLATE COURT 
 CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. 
 It held that Conchita voluntarily executed the real estate mortgage and Lourdes’ testimony was merely
hearsay. 
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT 
As regards the supposed defective verification occasioned by Conchita's failure to sign the amended
complaint with its concomitant verification and certification against forum shopping, the Court has repeatedly
held that in a case involving co-owners of property where said property is the subject matter of the suit, the
failure of the other co-owners to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping is not fatal, as
the signing by only one or some of them constitutes substantial compliance with the rule. 
 
Finally, we find no merit in respondents' argument that the present petition should be dismissed for failure of
the other co-heirs/co-petitioners to sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping as required
by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. xxxxxx 
 
"As such co-owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an action for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer,
or any kind of action for the recovery of possession of the subject properties. Thus, a co-owner may bring such
an action, even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be
instituted for the benefit of all." 
 
Finally, the Court finds the trial court to be correct in granting petitioners' motion for reconsideration and
declaring the mortgage and promissory note as null and void. The evidence indicates that the documents were
indeed simulated.