GR 161817; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161817 ; July 30, 2004
DANIEL D. CELINO, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ALEJO AND TERESA SANTIAGO, respondents.
FACTS
The respondents, heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, filed an action for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, and Damages against petitioner Daniel Celino. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that complainant Juliet Santiago lacked legal capacity to sue as she had no written authority to represent her co-plaintiffs. The trial court denied the motion, stating the issue was best resolved at trial. After pre-trial and the presentation of the respondents’ evidence, petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence, reiterating the same ground of Juliet Santiago’s alleged lack of authority.
The trial court denied the Demurrer, finding that Juliet Santiago had submitted the necessary authorizations. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it. The Court of Appeals ruled that lack of legal capacity to sue is not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) Whether a Demurrer to Evidence may be granted on the ground that the complainant has no authority to sue for her co-plaintiffs; and (2) Whether the complaint may be dismissed for the co-plaintiffs’ failure to execute the certification against non-forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence on the merits of the case. The ground of lack of legal capacity to sue is a technical, jurisdictional matter that does not pertain to the weight or adequacy of the evidence on the substantive cause of action. Therefore, it is not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence. The trial court correctly denied the demurrer on this basis.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the complaint cannot be dismissed for the co-plaintiffs’ failure to sign the certification against non-forum shopping. The respondents are co-owners of the disputed properties. Under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any co-owner may bring an action for the recovery of possession over co-owned property. Such an action is deemed instituted for the benefit of all co-owners. Since the complaint sought to recover possession for the benefit of the co-ownership, Juliet Santiago, as a co-owner, could properly file the suit even without the express authority of her co-heirs at the time of filing. Consequently, her certification against non-forum shopping sufficed. The petition was denied for lack of merit.