VOL.

400, APRIL 1, 2003

255
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
G.R. No. 148635. April 1, 2003.*
MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE, DON C. DELA CRUZ, JOSE C. DELA
CRUZ, JR., SOLON C. DELA CRUZ, JAMELA CAVILE BACOLINAO,
HENRIETTA GELLEGANI CAVILE, BERNARDO CAVILE,
LAWRENCE CAVILE, FRANCIS CAVILE REEVES, ROY CAVILE,
PRIMITIVO CAVILE, JR., NATIVIDAD CAVILE MINGOY,
AGUSTIN CAVILE, DIANA ROSE CAVILE DELA ROSA, THOMAS
GEORGE CAVILE, SR., HENRY CAVILE, MANUEL AARON
CAVILE, ALEXANDER CAVILE, WILFREDO CAVILE, FE CAVILE
DAGUIO, and HOPE CAVILE ARCHER, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF
CLARITA CAVILE, ULPIANO CAVILE, PLACIDA CAVILE,
GREGORIO CAVILE, FORTUNATA CAVILE, AMILITA CAVILE,
APAD CAVILE, AQUILINA CAVILE, CRESENCIO CAVILE, ALMA
CAVILE, JESUS CAVILE, ROMAN BANTILAN, GREGORIO
BANTILAN, FELOMINA PAREJA, ESPERANZA PAREJA, DIONESA
PAREJA, TEODULO TACANG, RAMONA TACANG, FABIAN
TACANG, COSME TA-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
256
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
CANG, CRESENCIO TACANG, CONSOLACION TACANG,
TERESITA TACANG, PRIMITIVO TACANG, LEODEGARIO
TACANG, BRENDA MAPUTI, LORNA MAPUTI, ADELINA
MAPUTI, SUSAN MAPUTI, LOURDES MAPUTI, FRANKLIN
MAPUTI, SALLY MAPUTI, JESUS MAPUTI, FRANCISCO MAPUTI,
VICTORIO SUNLIT, BARTOLOME SUNLIT, TEOFILO SUNLIT,
TIBURCIO SUNLIT, TITO SUNLIT, ASUNCION SUNLIT,
CATALINA SUNLIT, RAYMONDA SUNLIT, ISIDRO SUNLIT,
ROSAL GALAN, FRANCISCO GALAN, ROMUALDO QUIANZO,
JUSTO QUIANZO, LEONIDAD QUIANZO, JULITA QUIANZO,
SOCORRO QUIANZO, MARGARITO QUIANZO, CASTOR
QUIANZO, JUSTINA LITANIA, GENOVEVA LITANIA, FELICIDAD
LITANIA, BIENVENIDO CAVILE, REPELITO GALON, FELOMENA
NAVARRA, IRENE NAVARRA, RAYMUNDO NAVARRA, PEDRO
NAVARRA, ESTELA NAVARRA, CLEMENCIA NAVARRA,
FORTUNATA NAVARRA, LOURDES NAVARRA, VICTORIANO
NAVARRA, EUSTAQUIO LUYAS, and FORTUNATA LUYAS,
respondents.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Parties; Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping;
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the
petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them is insufficient;
The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of
the certification since the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions
regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory
nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded.The rule is that the certificate of non-forum
shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing
by only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the
rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to
subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance
may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the
requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of
non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification
cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It
does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The execution by one of the petitioners of the
certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules
where all the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of
257
VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003
257
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
the properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon, aside from sharing a
common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the respondents; The merits of
the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as special circumstance for the
Court to take cognizance of a petition for review although the certification against
forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.We find
that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the other petitioners
of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the
Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute,
share a common interest thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint
for partition filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they
filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights over the
properties in question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for Thomas George Cavili,
Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not filed any action
or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there other
pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues.
Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may
be deemed as special circumstance for the Court to take cognizance of a petition
for review although the certification against forum shopping was executed and signed
by only one of the petitioners.
Notarial Law; Evidence; Documents acknowledged before notaries public are
public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary
proof as to their authenticity and due execution.The document speaks for itself.
The foregoing document was acknowledged before Notary Public Iluminado Golez
and recorded in his notarial book as Reg. Not. No. 41; Pag. 100; Lib. II, Serie de
1937. Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents which
are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their
authenticity and due execution. They enjoy the presumption of regularity. It is a
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To overcome the presumption, there
must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.
Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Erneto M. Tomaneng, Jose F. Muoz, Lenin R. Victoriano andMario
P. Victoriano for petitioners.
Guilbert P. Zulueta for respondents.
258
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
December 21, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV. No. 36617 entitled Heirs of Clarita
Cavili,** et al. vs. Heirs of Perfecta Cavili, et al. reversing the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 36 in Civil Case No.
6880 for Partition, Accounting and Damages, and its Resolution dated
June 28, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration.
This case has its roots in the complaint filed by the respondents against
the petitioners for partition of the properties left by their common
ascendant, Bernardo Cavili.
It appears that Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. The first
marriage was with Ines Dumat-ol with whom he had one child, Simplicia.
The second was with Orfia Colalho with whom he had two children:
Fortunato and Vevencia. And the third was with Tranquilina Galon with
whom he had three children: Castor, Susana and Benedicta. Throughout
his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili acquired six parcels of land which became
the subject of the instant case.
In October 1977, the descendants of Bernardos first and second
marriage (herein respondents) filed a complaint for partition against the
descendants of his third marriage (herein petitioners). The complaint
alleged, among others, that respondents and petitioners were co-owners of
the properties in question, having inherited the same from Bernardo Cavili.
Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by his third marriage, Castor Cavili,
took possession of the properties as administrator for and in behalf of his
co-owners. However, when Castor died, his children took possession of
the parcels of land but no longer as administrators. They claimed the
properties as well as their fruits as their own and repeatedly refused
respondents demand for partition.
As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the reglementary period,
they were declared in default and respondents were allowed to present
evidence, ex parte. The trial court rendered a decision on October 5, 1979
ordering the partition of the six parcels of land.1However, upon motion of
Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili who
_______________
** Sometimes spelled in the records as Cavile.
1 Original Records, vol. 1, pp. 47-51.
259
VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003
259
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
were not properly served with summons, the trial court held a new trial and
allowed said parties to present evidence. Among the evidence they
proferred was a Deed of Partition which appeared to have been executed
by the heirs of Bernardo Cavili on April 5, 1937.2Giving weight to the
documentary evidence presented by Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili,
the trial court rendered another decision on May 7, 1991 dismissing the
complaint for partition.3 The court reasoned:
x x x
The court observes that there is only one important issue in this case, that is, was
there already division or partition made by the co-owners of the properties left by the
deceased Bernardo Cavili. All other issues are subsidiary. Partition is the division of
the property or properties by those entitled to them with the desire to put an end to
co-ownership. In 1937, a document of partition, marked as Exhibit 1 for the
defendants, was executed, it is known as Doc. No. 41; Book No. II; Page No. 100;
Series of 1937; and ratified by Notary Public Iluminado Golez; which reveals
Simplicia Cavili, the only child of Bernardo Cavili of his first marriage, participated
and concurred in the same partition; likewise, the children of the second marriage,
were also represented and also the spouse Tranquilina Galon of the third marriage
gave her concurrence as well as her legitimate children had with the deceased
Bernardo Cavili. In the said document, all the parcels of land acquired during the
third marriage were partitioned into two (2) parts: one part pertained to Bernardo
Cavili which in turn divided by his children, namely: Simplicia Cavili, the only child
of the first marriage, Lucio Cavili in representation of Fortunato Cavili eldest son in
the second marriage; Vicenta Navarra in representation of Vevencia Cavili second
child of the second marriage; and Susana Cavili, Castor Cavili and Benedicta Cavili,
the third marriage; and the second part, or the other half, was equally divided by the
three children of the third marriage, namely: Susana, Castor and Benedicta, all
surnamed Cavili.
That the court observed further, that in the same document of deed of partition the
share of Bernardo, Cavili which was up to the extent of one-half (1/2) share of the
conjugal properties with Tranquilina Galon was sold to Castor Cavili for the sum of
P166.00 by his legal heirs, likewise, the other one-half (1/2) share of Tranquilina
Galon was sold for the same amount by her rightful heirs in favor also of Castor
Cavili, who in turn took immediate possession, exercised acts of ownership and made
subsequent transfers. Likewise, other heirs of Bernardo Cavili did the same act of
subsequent transfers of what they had inherited just as the heirs of
_______________
2 Exhibit 1, Original Records, vol. 5, pp. 1047-1050.
3 Id., vol. 5, pp. 1112-1116.
260
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
Tranquilina Galon also made subsequent transfer of what they succeeded as
inheritance.
x x x
Respondents appealed the case to the Court of Appeals raising the
following errors:
1. 1.
The court a quo erred in concluding that the properties in question were
partitioned in 1937;
2. 2.
The court a quo erred in admitting the Deed of Partition (Exhibit 1);
and
3. 3.
The court a quo erred in dismissing the complaint.4
The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court. It ruled that the
trial court erred in admitting the Deed of Partition as evidence without
proof of its authenticity and due execution. It held that said Deed cannot be
considered as an ancient document whose authenticity and due execution
need not be proved as the respondents have presented evidence that cast
doubt on its authenticity and due execution. The respondents presented the
testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja who testified that
Simplicia Cavili, one of the signatories in the Deed, resided in Mindanao
from 1934 until 1947. It further observed that the supposed thumbprint of
Simplicia Cavili imprinted on the document appeared more like an inkblot
than a thumbmark. The Court of Appeals thus directed the trial court to
immediately appoint and constitute the necessary number of
commissioners who shall expeditiously effect the partition and accounting
of the subject properties in accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court
of the Philippines.5
Hence, this petition. Petitioners pose the following issues for resolution
by the Court:
1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals acted in accordance with law in
ruling that the notarized Deed of Partition (Exhibit 1), a public document, could not
be validly admitted in evidence because its genuineness and due execution was not
proved by the petitioners?
2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals acted in accordance with law
and prevailing jurisprudence in not ruling that prescrip-
_______________
4 CA Rollo, p. 70.
5 Rollo, pp. 33-50.
261
VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003
261
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
tion had set in since the petitioners have been in open and adverse occupation of the
subject properties for more than forty-five (45) years without recognizing the alleged
co-ownership with the respondents?6
Petitioners essentially argue that the Deed of Partition is a public
document duly acknowledged before a Notary Public. Hence, its
genuineness and due execution need not be proved. Its character as an
ancient document under the Revised Rules on Evidence is immaterial in
this case since said rule applies only to private documents. They further
contend that the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja which were mere
general denials.
Respondents, on the other hand, pray for the denial of the petition on
two grounds: first, it violates the rule on the certification against forum
shopping required to be attached to petitions for review filed with this
Court; and second, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in its
assailed decision. Respondents harp on the fact that only one of the
twenty-two (22) petitioners, Thomas George Cavili, Sr., executed and
signed the certification against forum shopping when the Rules require that
said certification must be signed by all the petitioners. Furthermore,
respondents argue that the Deed of Partition presented by the petitioners
may not be admitted in evidence as said document has not been identified
and its due execution has not been fully established. Respondents allege
that said document is tainted with forgery because it was shown that
Simplicia Cavili was in Mindanao before, during and after its execution.
Before going into the substantive issue raised in the petition, we shall
first resolve the procedural issue raised by the respondents, that is, that the
certification against forum shopping attached to the petition was signed by
only one of the petitioners.
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by
all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of
them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on
forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its
_______________
6 Id., p. 18.
262
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
own ultimate and legitimate objective.7 The rule of substantial compliance
may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is
because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding
the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory
nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. It does not thereby interdict
substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.8
We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of
all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes
substantial compliance with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives
and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest
thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint for partition
filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they
filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights
over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for
Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners
that they have not filed any action or claim involving the same issues in
another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or claim in
another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Moreover, it has been
held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed
as special circumstance for the Court to take cognizance of a petition for
review although the certification against forum shopping was executed and
signed by only one of the petitioners.9
After a thorough study of the records of this case, we find the petition
to be meritorious.
We hold that the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint for
partition, it appearing that the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavili have already
divided the properties among themselves, as evidenced by the Deed of
Partition dated April 5, 1937. The terms of the Deed read:
_______________
7 See Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658 (2001); Dar vs. Alonzo-Legasto,339 SCRA
306 (2000).
8 MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183 (2001).
9 Uy vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 336 SCRA 419 (2000).
263
VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003
263
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
DEED OF PARTITION
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile, Benedicta Cavile, Simplicia Cavile, Lucio Cavile
and Vicenta Navarra both (sic) of legal age and residents in the Municipality of
Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros, Philippine Islands, after being duly sworn to in
legal form, WITNESSETH:
That Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile and Benedicta Cavile are the only children of
Bernardo Cavile with his wife Tranquilina Galon, and that Simplicia Cavile and
Fortunato Cavile and Vevencia Cavile are the children of Bernardo Cavile outside
from the conjugal home of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon.
That Fortunato Cavile and Vevencia Cavile having already been dead are survived
by their corresponding children and represented in this document by their oldest
child, Lucio Cavile and Vicenta Navarra, respectively.
That during the union of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon several
properties have been acquired by them and declared under the name of Bernardo
Cavile all situated in the Municipality of Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros, which
properties are described as follows:
x x x
That by this document it is hereby agreed by the legal heirs of Bernardo Cavile
and Tranquilina Galon to divide and by these presents it is hereby divided the above-
mentioned properties in the following manner:
1. 1.
That the conjugal properties of said Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon
which are already described are hereby divided into two parts, ONE (1) part
which corresponds to the share of Bernardo Cavile is also divided into SIX (6)
equal parts, that is among Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile, Benedicta Cavile,
Simplicia Cavile, Fortunato Cavile represented by his oldest son, Lucio Cavile,
and Vevencia Cavile represented by her oldest child Vicenta Navarra.
2. 2.
That the other ONE (1) part, which corresponds to the share of Tranquilina
Galon is also hereby equally divided into THREE (3) parts, that is among
Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile and Benedicta Cavile.
SHARE OF BERNARDO CAVILE
x x x
That the share of Bernardo Cavile in parcels Tax Declaration Nos. 7421, 7143 and
7956 are sold by the legal heirs to Castor Cavile in consideration of the sum of ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY(-)SIX PESOS (P166.00),
264
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
Philippine currency, which amount has been received and divided equally among
them.
That parcel under Tax Declaration No. 5729 is hereby sold to Ulpiano Cavile by
the legal heirs of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon, in consideration of the sum
of FIFTY PESOS (P50.00), Philippine currency, which amount has been received
and divided equally among them.
SHARE OF TRANQUILINA GALON
x x x
That the share of Tranquilina Galon in parcels Tax Declaration Nos. 7421, 7143
and 7956 are hereby sold by the heirs of said Tranquilina Galon to Castor Cavile in
consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY(-)SIX PESOS (P166.00),
Philippine currency(,) which sum has been received and divided equally among them.
That the said heirs of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon above-mentioned,
hereby agree and accept as it is hereby agreed and accepted all the items and
conditions in this DEED OF PARTITION.
IN WITNESS HEREOF we have this 5th day of April, 1937, A.D., sign our
names below in the Municipality of Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros, Philippine
Islands.
(sgd) CASTOR CAVILE (sgd) SUSANA CAVILE
(sgd) BENEDICTA CAVILE
(sgd) SIMPLIClA CAVILE (sgd) LUCIO CAVILE
(sgd) VICENTA NAVARRA
Signed in the presence of:
(sgd) F.B. Malanog (sgd) Iluminado Golez
WITH MY CONSENT:
(thumb marked)
TRANQUILINA GALON
-----------------------------------
ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS
PROVINCIA DE NEGROS ORIENTAL S.S.
MUNICIPIO DE TOLONG.
En el dia de hoy 6 de Abril de 1937, A.D., ante mi comparecieron personalmente
Castor Cavile, Lucio Cavile, Susana Cavile, Benedicta
265
VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003
265
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
Cavile, Simplicia Cavile, y Vicenta Cavile y Tranquilina Galon de quienes doy fe que
los conozco por ser las personas que otorgaron el documento preinserto y ratificaron
ser este un acto de sus libres voluntades y otorgamiento. Castor Cavile me exhibe su
cedula personal No. F1138758 expedida el dia 1 de Febrero de 1937, y Lucio Cavile
me exhibe con el No. F11393521 expedida el dia 2 de Abril de 1937, y las
comparecientes no me exhiben por razon de sus sexos.
El documento se refiere a un convenio de particion entre los comparecientes arriba
mencionados sobre ciertas porciones de terreno radicadas todas en el municipio de
Tolong, Negros Oriental consistente en cuatro (4) paginas utiles inclusive la de
ratificacion, cada una de las cuales estan firmadas pos los otorgantes y pos los
testigos instrumentales al pie y al margen izquierdo que lleva mi sello notarial y
ratifican que el documento preinserto se otorgo bajo sus libres y expontanea voluntad.
A
N
T
E

M
I
:

(
s
g
d
)

I
L
U
M
I
N
A
D
O

G
O
L
E
Z

N
o
t
a
r
i
o

P
u
b
l
i
c
o

M
i

c
o
m
i
s
i
o
n

e
x
p
i
r
a

e
l

D
i
c
i
e
m
b
r
e

3
1
,

1
9
3
7
Reg. Not. No. 41
Pag. . . . . . . . .100
Lib. II
Serie de 1937
The document speaks for itself. The foregoing document was
acknowledged before Notary Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his
notarial book as Reg. Not. No. 41; Pag. 100; Lib. II, Serie de 1937.
Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents
which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as
to their authenticity and due execution. They enjoy the presumption of
regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To
overcome the presumption, there must be evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant. Absent such evidence, the
presumption must be upheld.10
Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, we find that
respondents in this case failed to overcome the presumption of regu-
_______________
10 Ruiz, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 40 (2001); Liana vs. Court of Appeals, 361
SCRA 27 (2001); Abapo vs. Court of Appeals, 327 SCRA 180(2000); Cleofas vs. St. Peter
Memorial Park, Inc., 324 SCRA 223 (2000).
266
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
larity. The appellate court based its conclusion on the testimonies of
Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja who both testified that Simplicia
Cavili resided in Mindanao from 1934 until 1947.11Granting such fact to be
true, it does not preclude the possibility that Simplicia Cavile could have
traveled from her residence in Mindanao to Tolong, Negros Oriental to
participate in the execution of the Deed of Partition. Filomena Pareja, a
granddaughter of Simplicia Cavili, in fact stated during cross examination
that the latter was in perfect health and was completely mobile at that time.
She also admitted that there was available transportation from Mindanao to
Negros Oriental.12 Their testimonies, therefore, are insufficient to overturn
the presumption that the questioned Deed of Partition has been duly
executed. Furthermore, a close examination of the questioned Deed of
Partition shows that what respondents claim to be mere inkblot is actually
a thumbmark. We note the visible grooves or lines on the imprint that
indicate that they are not mere drops of ink but an actual thumbprint.
Hence, we uphold the ruling of the trial court finding that the properties
left by Bernardo Cavili have already been partitioned among his heirs.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it unnecessary to discuss
the issue on prescription raised by petitioners.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned
Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-Morales,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, assailed judgment set aside. That of the trial court
reinstated.
Notes.While the requirement as to certificate of non-forum shopping
is mandatory, nonetheless the requirement must not be interpreted too
literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing
_______________
11 TSN, June 14, 1990, pp. 10-12; TSN, July 13, 1990, pp. 6-8.
12 TSN, July 13, 1990, pp. 9-10.
267
VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003
267
People vs. Lacson
the undesirable practice of forum-shopping. (Bernardo vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 255 SCRA 108 [1996])
Where a party was abroad when the petition for certiorari was filed, this
is a reasonable cause to exempt him from compliance with the requirement
that he personally execute the certification on non-forum shopping.
(Hamilton vs. Levy, 344 SCRA 821 [2000])
o0o
Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.