G.R. No. 212493 & G.R. No. 212504, June 01, 2016
GABRIEL YAP, SR. DULY REPRESENTED BY GILBERT YAP AND ALSO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, GABRIEL YAP, JR., AND HYMAN YAP, PETITIONERS, VS. LETECIA SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 212504]
CEBU SOUTH MEMORIAL GARDEN, INC., PETITIONER, VS. LETECIA SIAO, LYNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions for Review on Certiorari assail the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which set aside a Summary Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. The case originated from a Complaint for Specific Performance filed by Cebu South Memorial Gardens, Inc. (CSMGI) and Gabriel Yap, Sr. (represented by his son Gilbert Yap, President of CSMGI) against respondents Letecia Siao and her children. The complaint was based on a Certificate of Agreement where the parties agreed to: (1) convert parcels of land owned by the Siao spouses into memorial lots; (2) organize a corporation; (3) transfer the land titles to Gabriel Yap, Sr., who would then transfer them to the corporation; and (4) provide Letecia Siao with a monthly advance payment of ₱100,000.00. Petitioners alleged that respondents refused to transfer the land titles to CSMGI despite the agreement. Respondents initially defended by claiming Letecia Siao was coerced into signing the agreement, rendering it void. However, during the pendency of the case, respondents filed a Motion for Payment of Monthly Support based on the same agreement. The RTC granted this motion. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that by seeking benefits under the agreement, respondents had effectively admitted its validity. The RTC initially denied this motion, but the CA, in a prior petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 73850), reversed the RTC and ordered it to render a summary judgment. This CA decision became final and executory on June 7, 2004. In compliance, the RTC rendered a Summary Judgment on February 7, 2006, ordering respondents to transfer the subject land titles to CSMGI. Respondents appealed this Summary Judgment to the CA. In its assailed Decision dated October 9, 2013, the CA set aside the Summary Judgment on the ground that the certification against forum-shopping appended to the original complaint was defective. The CA ruled that Gilbert Yap, as President of CSMGI, lacked the authority to sign the certification without a supporting board resolution, and that Gabriel Yap, Jr. and Hyman Yap failed to sign their own certifications. The CA held these defects meant the complaints were not filed and the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaints and reversing the Summary Judgment based on a defective certification against forum-shopping.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed the CA’s Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC’s Summary Judgment dated February 7, 2006.
The Supreme Court held that the CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the case on the technical ground of a defective certification against forum-shopping. The Court ruled as follows:
1. The verification and certification signed by the corporate president was sufficient. Citing jurisprudence, the Court held that a corporation’s power to sue is exercised by its board of directors. However, the president or other authorized officers may sign the verification and certification without a specific board resolution if such act is within the general authority granted to them by virtue of their position. Gilbert Yap, as President of CSMGI, had the authority to represent the corporation in filing the suit and signing the requisite certification.
2. The defect, if any, was not jurisdictional and was waived by respondents. The Court reiterated that a defective verification and certification against forum-shopping is not a jurisdictional defect. It is a formal requirement that may be waived if not raised in a timely manner. Respondents failed to raise this defect in a motion to dismiss or in their answer. By actively participating in the proceedings over many years—including filing a motion for monthly support based on the agreement and appealing the summary judgment on the merits—respondents are deemed to have waived any objection to the formal defect.
3. The doctrine of immutability of judgment applies. The CA’s earlier Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 73850, which ordered the RTC to render a summary judgment, had long become final and executory. This final judgment conclusively determined that there was no genuine issue of fact and that summary judgment was proper. The CA, in the assailed decision, effectively overruled this final judgment by dismissing the complaint on a technicality, which violated the doctrine of immutability of judgment. A final judgment can no longer be altered.
4. The Summary Judgment was correctly rendered. The Court found that the CA’s earlier final ruling established that respondents, by invoking the benefits of the Certificate of Agreement (specifically, by seeking monthly support), were estopped from denying its validity. Consequently, there was no genuine factual issue left for trial, making the rendition of the Summary Judgment by the RTC proper.
Therefore, the Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s Summary Judgment ordering respondents to transfer the titles of the three parcels of land to Cebu South Memorial Garden, Inc.