Mahinay Vs CA

Doctrine: Verification of pleading is not an empty ritual bereft of any legal importance.
It
is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations contained in the pleading are
true and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good
faith.
A pleading may be verified by stating that the pleaders have read the allegations in
their petition and that the same are true and correct based either on their personal
knowledge or authentic records, or based both on their personal
knowledge and authentic records.
FACTS:
Constantina H. Sanchez, Josefina H. Lopez and Susan Honoridez are the registered
owners (the owners) of a parcel of land known as Lot 5 located in Cebu City. Petitioner
Mahinay filed a complaint for specific performance against the owners and one Felimon
Suarez (Suarez), to compel them to convey Lot 5 to him. Mahinay alleged that in an
earlier case he filed against the owners, the parties therein arrived at a Compromise
Agreement wherein the owners gave him preferential right to buy the portion of lot on
condition that he will withdraw said case. The trial court thus issued a Judgment based
on said Compromise Agreement. However, the owners sold the entire Lot 5 to Suarez
without first offering the same to Mahinay. According to Mahinay, said transaction
violated his preferential right to buy as he was willing and capable of buying the
property.
In traversing Mahinay's allegations, the owners asserted that they did not violate
Mahinays preferential right to buy as the transaction between them and Suarez was
actually an equitable mortgage, and not a sale as evidenced by an Acknowledgment
Receipt stating that no sale between them actually pushed thru.
The RTC rendered a Decision debunking the owners theory of equitable mortgage. It
held that the notarized documents Mahinay presented, particularly the Deed of Absolute
Sale, outweigh the owners evidence consisting of private documents. The CA affirmed
the RTC Decision.
Mahinay and Suarez filed a Joint Manifestation informing the RTC that in compliance
with its Decision, Suarez executed a Deed of Conveyance in favor of Mahinay,
deposited in the RTC.
The RTC, then already presided by Judge Gako, issued a Resolution granting Mahinays
motion that he should have the actual and physical possession of the entire Lot 5.
Mahinay riposted, postulating that the Deed of Absolute Sale he attached to his
Complaint sufficiently confutes the owners’ defense of equitable mortgage. Besides, the
owners and Suarez failed to deny under oath the authenticity and due execution of said
Deed of Absolute Sale.
RTC debunked that theory and held that the notarized documents Mahinay presented,
particularly the Deed of Absolute Sale, outweigh the owners’ evidence consisting of
private documents.
The owners and Suarez moved for reconsideration but was denied by the RTC. Thus,
appealed to the CA.
RTC, which is already presided by Judge Gako, issued a Resolution granting Mahinay’s

motion. Thus, defendants are directed to turn over the Owner’s Duplicate Copy title to
Mahinay and to vacate the premises thereof in favor of the latter within thirty (30) days
from receipt of this resolution. But the same could not be surrendered to him as the
same was already in possession of Sorensen by virtue of a Real Estate Mortgage
executed by the owners subsequent to the filing of Mahinay’s complaint.
Mahinay filed a Motion to Issue an Order Directing Sorensen to Turn Over the title.
Judge Gako issued the assailed Resolution 37 in G.R. No. 165338 denying Mahinay’s
motion, the pertinent portions of which read: [Mahinay’s] Motion to Direct Jocelyn B.
Sorensen to turn over TCT to the sheriff is hereby denied.
Mahinay’s MR.
Mahinay filed a 2 Ex-Parte Motion for Early Resolution, furnishing the Court

Administrator a copy thereof with express reservation of making the same as his formal
administrative complaint in the future.
On July 20, 2004, what seemed to be an interminable wait for Mahinay finally ended,
albeit with unwanted result on his part – Judge Gako came up with a one-page
Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
Aggrieved yet still refusing to concede defeat, Mahinay directly went to this court.
ISSUES: WON the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition

for certiorari for failing to state in its verification portion the phrase ‘or based on
authentic records’ as required in section 4, rule 7 of the 1997 rules on civil procedure
[e]specially so when petitioner had already filed an amended petition for certiorari with
the corrected verification portion this time containing the phrase "based on authentic
records"
Held: NO
The CA for not taking a liberal stance in resolving Sorensen’s petition for certiorari as
the dismissal thereof did not impair or affect her substantive rights.
The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Sorensen’s petition for certiorari.
Respondent Contention: Sorensen admits that due to inadvertence she failed to state in
the verification portion of her petition that the allegations therein are true and correct
based on authentic records. Nonetheless, such omission, according to Sorensen, does
not justify the outright dismissal of her petition. She posits that the purpose of
verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true
and correct. Thus, "the requirement that a petition for certiorari be verified is not an
absolute necessity where the material facts alleged are a matter of records and all the
questions raised are mainly of law," just like in her CA petition. After all, the absence of
verification is a mere formal, not jurisdictional, defect.
Sorensen misses the point.
The rule requiring certain pleadings to be verified is embodied in Section 4, Rule 7 of

the Rules of Court. It reads:
SEC. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule,

pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and
that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on

"information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a
proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
Verification of pleading is not an empty ritual bereft of any legal importance. It is

intended to secure an assurance that the allegations contained in the pleading are true
and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good
faith.81 A pleading may be verified by stating that the pleaders have read the allegations
in their petition and that the same are true and correct based either on their personal
knowledge or authentic records, or based both on their personal
knowledge and authentic records. While the rule gives the pleaders several ways of
verifying their pleading, the use of the phrase personal knowledge or authentic
records is not without any legal signification and the pleaders are not at liberty to
choose any of these phrases fancifully. Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi82 teaches us
when to properly use authentic records in verifying a pleading:
"[A]uthentic" records as a basis for verification bear significance in petitions wherein the
greater portions of the allegations are based on the records of the proceedings in the
court of origin and/or the court a quo, and not solely on the personal knowledge of the
petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner himself could not have affirmed, based on his personal
knowledge, the truthfulness of the statement in his petition before the CA that at the pre-
trial conference respondent admitted having received the letter of demand, because he
(petitioner) was not present during the conference. Hence, petitioner needed to rely on
the records to confirm its veracity.
In her CA petition, Sorensen questioned the Orders of Judge Gako which respectively
granted Mahinay’s Reiteratory Motion and denied her Motion for Reconsideration. In
addition to said Orders and Motions, and to support the allegations in her petition,
Sorensen also attached copies of the August 12, 2005 Decision of this Court in G.R.
No. 153762 and other material portions of the records of Civil Case No. CEB-16335.
Quite obviously, Sorensen had no participation in the preparation and execution of
these documents although they constitute the main bulk of her evidence. Hence, it was
necessary for Sorensen to state in the verification that the allegations in her petition are
true and correct not only based on her personal knowledge but also based on the
information she gathered from authentic records. 83 The CA is, therefore, correct in its
observation that Sorensen’s verification is insufficient.
Nonetheless, the Rules and jurisprudence on the matter have it that the court may allow
such deficiency to be remedied, "non-compliance x x x or a defect [in the verification]
does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such
that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the needs of
justice may be served thereby."
Pitted against this test, we sustain the CA for not taking a liberal stance in resolving
Sorensen’s petition for certiorari as the dismissal thereof did not impair or affect her
substantive rights.

Mahinay Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahinay Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine: Verification of pleading is not an empty ritual bereft of any legal importance.

RTC, which is already presided by Judge Gako, issued a Resolution granting Mahinay’s

Mahinay filed a 2 Ex-Parte Motion for Early Resolution, furnishing the Court

ISSUES: WON the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition

Sorensen misses the point.

The rule requiring certain pleadings to be verified is embodied in Section 4, Rule 7 of

SEC. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule,

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on

Verification of pleading is not an empty ritual bereft of any legal importance. It is

You might also like