G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001
ANTONIO DOCENA and ALFREDA DOCENA, petitioners, vs. HON. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch III, Guian, Eastern Samar; RUFINO M. GARADO, Sheriff IV; and CASIANO HOMBRIA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Casiano Hombria filed a complaint for recovery of a parcel of land against petitioners, spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision in favor of the petitioners, ordering them to vacate the land they leased from Hombria, excluding the portion they reclaimed from the sea. After the decision became final, Hombria moved for execution. The sheriff sought clarification on the excluded portion, leading the trial court to issue a resolution directing execution based on the appellate decision’s terms. Petitioners’ motion to set aside the subsequent alias writ of demolition was denied by the trial court in an Order dated November 18, 1998, received by petitioners on December 29, 1998. They filed a motion for reconsideration on January 27, 1999, which was denied on March 17, 1999, with notice received on May 4, 1999. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals on June 14, 1999.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition for being filed out of time and for an allegedly defective certification of non-forum shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was timely filed. The Court of Appeals erroneously computed the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. The period commenced on December 29, 1998 (receipt of the November 18, 1998 Order) and was interrupted by the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration on January 27, 1999. The trial court had granted petitioners an extension to file until January 13, 1999; thus, only the 15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration elapsed. Upon receipt of the denial on May 4, 1999, petitioners had the remaining 45 days of the original 60-day period to file the certiorari petition. Filing on June 14, 1999 was within this period. On the certification of non-forum shopping, the Court held it was sufficient. The husband, as the administrator of the conjugal partnership, could validly sign the certification on behalf of his wife for a suit involving the conjugal property’s administration and enjoyment, where no alienation or encumbrance was involved. The defect was not a material misrepresentation warranting dismissal. The Court of Appeals’ resolutions were annulled and set aside, and the case was remanded for proceedings on the merits.