Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mesina V Fian
Mesina V Fian
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
346
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Before Us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Decision1 dated April 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred in by Associate
Justices Gabrial T. Ingles and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
347
CA-G.R. CV No. 01366 and its Resolution dated April 12, 2012
denying reconsideration.
The Facts
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695
_______________
2 Rollo, p. 8.
348
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695
_______________
3 Id., at p. 50.
349
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695
_______________
4 Records, p. 76. Penned by Judge Absalon U. Fulache.
350
On February 29, 2006, the RTC issued its Resolution denying the
motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the Resolution
reads:
Ruling of the CA
In affirming the RTC, the CA, on April 29, 2011, rendered its
Decision, ruling that all the heirs of the spouses Fian are
indispensable parties and should have been impleaded in the
complaint. The appellate court explained that this failure to implead
the other heirs of the late spouses Fian is a legal obstacle to the trial
court’s exercise of judicial power over the case and any order or
judgment that would be rendered is a nullity in view of the absence
of indispensable parties. The CA further held that the RTC correctly
dismissed the complaint for being improperly verified. The CA
disposed of the appeal in this wise:
_______________
5 Id., at p. 98.
6 Rollo, p. 15.
351
Assignment of Errors
Without the presence of all the heirs of spouses Fian as defendants, the
trial court could not validly render judgment and grant relief to [petitioners].
x x x The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as
to the absent parties but even as to those present. Hence, the court a quo
correctly ordered for the dismissal of the action on the ground that the
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 28, 32, 34.
352
complaint failed to name or implead all the heirs of the late [spouses
Fian].8
_______________
8 Id., at p. 13.
9 See Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 157479, November 24,
2010, 636 SCRA 13, 30.
10 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1154 (9th ed., 2009).
11 Pascual v. Robles, G.R. No. 182645, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 712, 719;
citing Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 166302, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA
591.
353
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695
_______________
12 G.R. No. 159121, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 421, 433.
354
x x x x
2. The allegations herein are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge;13 x x x
Both the RTC and the CA found said verification defective, since
the phrase “or based on authentic records,” as indicated under the
second paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 7 as afore-quoted, was omitted.
We do not agree.
That the verification of the complaint does not include the phrase
“or based on authentic records” does not make the verification
defective. Notably, the provision used the disjunctive word “or.” The
word “or” is a disjunctive article indicating an alternative.14 As
such, “personal knowledge” and “authentic records” need not concur
in a verification as they are to be taken separately.
Also, verification, like in most cases required by the rules of
procedure, is a formal requirement, not jurisdictional. It is mainly
intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are
done in good faith or are true and correct and not of mere
speculation. Thus, when circumstances so warrant, as in the case at
hand, “the court may simply order the correction of unverified
pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in
order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.”15
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.
The assailed April 29, 2011 Decision and April 12, 2012 Resolution
of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 01366, and
_______________
13 Rollo, p. 53.
14 Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R.
No. 171101, November 22, 2011, 660 SCRA 525, 551; citing PCI Leasing and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
2/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695
Finance, Inc. v. Giraffe-X Creative Imaging, Inc., G.R. No. 142618, July 12, 2007,
527 SCRA 405, 422.
15 Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA
281, 293.
355
the November 22, 2005 Order and February 29, 2006 Resolution of
the RTC, Branch 14 in Baybay, Leyte, dismissing the complaint in
Civil Case No. B-05-08-20, are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Norman Mesina is ORDERED to implead all the
Heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr. as defendants in said civil case within
thirty (30) days from notice of finality of this Decision. Failure on
the part of petitioner Mesina to comply with this directive shall
result in the dismissal of Civil Case No. B-05-08-20. Upon
compliance by petitioner Mesina with this directive, the RTC,
Branch 14 in Baybay, Leyte is ORDERED to undertake appropriate
steps and proceedings to expedite adjudication of the case.
SO ORDERED.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016187a990e44c7036fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9