Docena Vs Lapesura

Cervantes, Gabriel Homer O.
160. Docena vs Lapesura (G.R. No. 140153. March 28, 2001)
PETITIONER: ANTONIO DOCENA and ALFREDA DOCENA

RESPONDENT: HON. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, RTC
DATE: March 28, 2001
PONENTE: Gonzaga-Reyes, J
TOPIC:
FACTS:
 This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the
nullification of the CA Resolution.
 Private respondent Casiano Hombria filed a Complaint for the recovery of a parcel of land against
his lessees, petitioner-spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena.
 In a Decision, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners and the intervenor Abuda. On appeal,
the CA reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered the petitioners "to vacate the land
they have leased from the plaintiff-appellant. .”
 Private respondent Hombria filed a Motion for Execution of the above decision which has already
become final and executory. The motion was granted by the public respondent judge.
 The petitioners filed a Motion to Set Aside or Defer the Implementation of Writ of Demolition. This
motion was denied by the public respondent judge in an Order.
 The public respondent judge, in open court, granted the petitioners an extension to file a Motion
for Reconsideration. The motion was finally filed by the petitioners but was denied by the trial
court in an Order.
 A Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed by the petitioners with the CA.
 In a Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition was filed beyond
the 60-day period provided under Section 4 of Rule 65.
 The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether it is sufficient that only one of the petitioners signed the certification of non-forum
shopping. YES.
RULING:
 It has been our previous ruling that the certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by all
the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
 In the case of Efren Loquias, et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., we held that the signing
of the Verification and the Certification on Non-Forum Shopping by only one of the petitioners
constitutes a defect in the petition. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum
shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing
petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-
petitioners of any action or claim the same as or similar to the current petition. To merit the
Court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the
certification.
 In the case at bar, we hold that the subject Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping signed by the
petitioner Antonio Docena alone should be deemed to constitute substantial compliance with the
rules. There are only two petitioners in this case and they are husband and wife. Their residence
is the subject property alleged to be conjugal in the instant verified petition. The
Verification/Certification on Non-Forum Shopping attached to the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition was signed only by the husband who certified, inter alia, that he and his wife have not
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues raised in the petition in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; that to the best of their knowledge no such action is
pending therein; and that he and his wife undertake to inform the Court within 5 days from notice
of any similar action or proceeding which may have been filed.
 The signing petitioner here made the certification in his behalf and that of his wife. The husband
may reasonably be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his wife of
any action or claim similar to the petition for certiorari and prohibition given the notices and legal
processes involved in a legal proceeding involving real property.
 We also see no justifiable reason why he may not lawfully undertake together with his wife to
inform the court of any similar action or proceeding which may be filed. If anybody may repudiate
the certification or undertaking for having been incorrectly made, it is the wife who may
conceivably do so.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

Docena Vs Lapesura

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

Docena Vs Lapesura

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cervantes, Gabriel Homer O.

160. Docena vs Lapesura (G.R. No. 140153. March 28, 2001)

PETITIONER: ANTONIO DOCENA and ALFREDA DOCENA

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

You might also like