G.R. No. 147379; February 27, 2002
HEIRS OF AMBROCIO KIONISALA, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF HONORIO DACUT, respondents.

FACTS

The respondents (Heirs of Honorio Dacut) filed a complaint against the petitioners (Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala) for declaration of nullity of titles, reconveyance, and damages over two parcels of land in Bukidnon. Respondents claimed absolute ownership by inheritance, alleging their father possessed the lots for over thirty years and that petitioners fraudulently secured free patents and original certificates of title for the properties. The complaint included a verification and certificate of non-forum shopping signed by one of the respondents.
Petitioners filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses, including that the complaint stated no cause of action, was barred by prescription, and that only the Director of Lands (through the Solicitor General) could file an action for annulment of a free patent. They also alleged the certificate of non-forum shopping was defective. The trial court dismissed the complaint, agreeing that the action was for reversion which only the State could initiate, and that the certification was non-compliant.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint based on the grounds of improper party and defective certification against forum shopping.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the dismissal. On the substantive issue, the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for reconveyance based on an implied trust, not merely a reversion suit. The allegations of respondents’ prior ownership and petitioners’ fraudulent registration, if proven, establish a constructive trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, granting respondents a personal action for reconveyance. This is distinct from a reversion action, which indeed belongs solely to the State. A complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it alleges even one sufficient cause.
Regarding procedural technicality, the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping substantially complied with the rules. The signatory, one of the co-plaintiffs, affirmed the truth of the allegations and the absence of any similar pending action to the best of her knowledge. The rule does not require all plaintiffs to sign individually. The Court emphasized that dismissals based on technicalities, especially regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, are frowned upon when they obstruct substantive justice. The case was remanded for trial on the merits.