GR 136449; (August, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136449 ; August 22, 2002
Carmelita S. Mendigorin, petitioner, vs. Maria Cabantog, represented by her son, Rafael Cabantog, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Carmelita S. Mendigorin filed a complaint for ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Hagonoy, Bulacan against respondent Maria Cabantog. Mendigorin alleged she was a co-owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-5053 (2161) and that she allowed Cabantog to occupy a 100-square-meter portion of said land without paying rent. After demands to vacate and pay reasonable compensation were unheeded, Mendigorin filed the ejectment case. Cabantog, in her answer, claimed ownership of the 100-square-meter portion, alleging it was part of a 350-square-meter lot adjudicated to her and her co-owners and that Mendigorin used fraud to include it in her title. The MTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC and ordered Cabantog to vacate, pay compensation and attorney’s fees. Cabantog then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC’s dismissal. Mendigorin’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to and granting Cabantog’s petition despite a defective certificate of non-forum shopping, which was not signed personally by Cabantog but only by her counsel.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted Mendigorin’s petition, reversed and set aside the CA decision and resolution, and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that the CA erred in entertaining Cabantog’s petition as it was fatally defective due to the lack of a proper certification of non-forum shopping. The certification must be signed by the plaintiff or principal party personally, not merely by counsel, as only the party has actual knowledge of whether similar actions have been initiated. The Court cited Digital Microwave Corporation vs. CA and Valentin Ortiz vs. CA, ruling that substantial compliance does not suffice and Cabantog failed to explain her non-compliance or show that justice would be defeated by dismissal. Consequently, Cabantog’s petition before the CA should have been outrightly dismissed, making the RTC decision final and executory. The Court noted the case involved possession, not ownership, which could be settled in a proper action.