G.R. No. 168943 ; October 27, 2006
IGLESIA NI CRISTO, petitioner, vs. HON. THELMA A. PONFERRADA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 104, Quezon City, and HEIRS OF ENRIQUE G. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

The heirs of Enrique Santos filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Accion Reinvindicatoria against Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC). They claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Quezon City based on a reconstituted title (TCT No. RT-110323), alleging continuous, open, and adverse possession since the lifetime of their predecessor. They discovered INC was claiming ownership under a different title (TCT No. 321744) issued in 1984. The heirs asserted that their title was superior and that INC’s title was spurious, as they never encumbered or disposed of the property. INC moved to dismiss the complaint on procedural and substantive grounds, including alleged non-compliance with the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping, as only one heir signed the certification, and on the ground of prescription.
The Regional Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the verification and certification were substantially compliant since the signing heir represented the others as co-plaintiffs, and that the action had not prescribed. INC elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply with the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping; and (2) whether the action had prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the verification and certification against forum shopping were substantially compliant. The signing heir, Enrique G. Santos, explicitly stated in the certification that he was representing his co-heir plaintiffs, and the complaint itself was filed by all heirs represented by him. Under the circumstances, this constituted substantial compliance, as the rule on certification should not be interpreted too rigidly to dismiss cases on mere technicalities, especially where the parties share a common interest in the property.
On the substantive issue of prescription, the Court held that the action had not prescribed. An action for quieting of title or accion reinvindicatoria is imprescriptible when the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The heirs alleged continuous, open, and adverse possession, which was a material averment deemed hypothetically admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss. Since they were in possession, their right to seek judicial affirmation of their title and to challenge the cloud upon it did not lapse. Prescription only begins to run against a possessor from the time their possession is disturbed. The Court found no error in the lower courts’ refusal to dismiss the case at a preliminary stage.