G.R. No. L-185, April 30, 1947
ARCADIA ARAMBULO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PEPITA PEREZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of ouster (ejectment) rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of the plaintiffs, Arcadia Arambulo et al., against the defendant, Pepita Perez. The case originated in the municipal court, which also decided for the plaintiffs. The complaint was signed by the plaintiffs’ attorney under an oath stating: “Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 23d day of June, 1945 affiant with residence certificate No. 0788120 issued at Manila on June 12, 1945.” The defendant raised two main defenses: (1) that the complaint was fatally defective for lack of proper verification under the Rules of Court, and (2) that the plaintiffs did not need the premises (No. 1933 M. Natividad, Manila) for their own use and that the suit was brought due to the defendant’s refusal to pay an increased rental.

ISSUE

1. Whether the complaint was properly verified in accordance with the Rules of Court.
2. Whether the plaintiffs’ ownership of other properties and their alleged lack of need for the premises constitute valid defenses against the ejectment action.

RULING

1. On the verification of the complaint: The Court held that the complaint substantially conformed to the verification requirement under Rule of Court No. 15. The attorney’s signing of the complaint under oath certified that he read the pleading and that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there was good ground to support it. The Court distinguished Section 6 (requiring an affidavit that allegations are true of the verifier’s own knowledge) as applicable when a person other than the signing attorney verifies the pleading. Here, the attorney’s oath implied personal knowledge, as the allegations were positive and sworn, and there was no indication they were based solely on information. The Court cited Lim Bonfing y Hermanos, Inc. vs. Rodriguez (72 Phil., 586) to support that an oath stating “to the best of my knowledge and belief” suffices. The Rules provide safeguards against false pleadings through disciplinary measures.
2. On the defenses to ejectment: The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments. The fact that the plaintiffs owned other accesorias (apartment buildings) did not defeat their right to recover possession of the leased premises for their own use, as allowing such a defense would nullify lessors’ rights under similar circumstances (citing De Licauco vs. Reyes Estaniel, G.R. No. L-215). Commonwealth Act No. 689 (as amended by Republic Act No. 66 ), which regulates ejectment, expressly excepts cases where the premises are needed by the lessors, as in this case. The Court also declined to consider an intimation in the defendant’s memorandum that the plaintiffs had rebuilt a burned house after judgment, as it was not timely proven and was denied under oath by the plaintiffs.
The appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against the defendant.