1. MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL v.

HEIRS OF MINOZA

FACTS:
On July 6, 1998, a Complaint [3] for Reconveyance, Cancellation of Defendants Title, Issuance of New Title
toPlaintiffs and Damages was filed by Leila M. Hermosisima (Leila) for herself and on behalf of the other heirs ofthe
late Estanislao Mioza. The complaint alleged that Leilas late great grandfather, Estanislao Mioza, was theregistered
owner of Cadastral Lot Nos. 986 and 991-A, located at Banilad Estate, Cebu City, per TCT Nos. RT-6101 (T-10534)
and RT-6102 (T10026). It was, likewise, alleged that the late Estanislao Mioza had threechildren, namely, Adriana,
Patricio, and Santiago, all surnamed Mioza. In the late 1940s, the National AirportsCorporation (NAC) embarked in
an expansion project of the Lahug Airport. For said purpose, the NACacquired several properties which surrounded
the airport either through negotiated sale or throughexpropriation. Among the properties that were acquired by
the NAC through a negotiated sale were Lot Nos.986 and 991-A.[4] Leila claimed that their predecessors-in-
interest, specifically, Adriana, Patricio, and Santiago executed a Deedof Sale on February 15, 1950 conveying the
subject lots to the NAC on the assurance made by the latter thatthey (Leilas predecessors-in-interest) can buy the
properties back if the lots are no longerneeded. Consequently, they sold Lot No. 986 to the NAC for only P157.20
and Lot No. 991-Afor P105.40. However, the expansion project did not push through. More than forty years after
the sale,plaintiffs informed the NACs successor-in-interest, the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA),that they were exercising the buy-back option of the agreement, but the MCIAA refused to allow
therepurchase on the ground that the sale was in fact unconditional.The MCIAA, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed an Answer with Counterclaim.After the parties filed their respective pleadings, trial ensued.On
November 16, 1999, before the MCIAA could present evidence in support of its case, a Motion
forIntervention,[5] with an attached Complainant-in-Intervention, was filed before the Regional Trial Court(RTC) of
Cebu City, Branch 22, by the heirs of Filomeno T. Mioza, represented by Laureano M. Mioza; the heirsof Pedro T,
Mioza, represented by Leoncio J. Mioza; and the Heirs of Florencia T. Mioza, represented byAntonio M. Urbiztondo
(Intervenors), who claimed to be the true, legal, and legitimate heirs of the lateEstanislao Mioza. The intervenors
alleged in their complaint (1) that the plaintiffs in the main case are notrelated to the late spouses Estanislao
Mioza and Inocencia Togono whose true and legitimate children were:Filomeno, Pedro, and Florencia, all
surnamed Mioza; (2) that, on January 21, 1958, Adriana, Patricio, andSantiago, executed, in fraud of the
intervenors, an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the late spousesEstanislao Mioza and Inocencia Togono
and adjudicated unto themselves the estate of the deceased spouses;and (3) that, on February 15, 1958, the same
Adriana, Patricio, and Santiago, fraudulently, deceitfully, and inbad faith, sold Lot Nos. 986 and 991-A to the
NAC.On February 18, 2000, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 22, issued an Order denying the Motion for
Intervention.In denying the motion, the trial court opined that the ownership of the subject lots was merely a
collateralissue in the action. The principal issue to be resolved was whether or not the heirs of the late
EstanislaoMioza whoever they may be have a right to repurchase the said lots from the MCIAA. Consequently,
the rightsbeing claimed by the intervenors should be asserted in and would be fully protected by a
separateproceeding. Moreover, if the motion was granted, it would unduly delay the proceedings in the
instantcase. Finally, the complaint-in-intervention was flawed, considering that it was not verified and does
notcontain the requisite certification of non-forum shopping.The intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration, to
which was attached a Complaint-in-Intervention withthe required Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping. However, the RTC denied the motion in itsOrder dated July 25, 2000.

Aggrieved, the intervenors sought recourse before the CA.

In ruling for the intervenors, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the findings of the trial court, thedetermination
of the true heirs of the late Estanislao Mioza is not only a collateral, but the focal issue of thecase, for if the
intervenors can prove that they are indeed the true heirs of Estanislao Mioza, there would beno more need to
determine whether the right to buy back the subject lots exists or not as the MCIAA wouldnot have acquired rights
to the subject lots in the first place. In addition, to grant the motion for interventionwould avoid multiplicity of
suits. As to the lack of verification and certification on non-forum shopping, the CAopined that the filing of the
motion for reconsideration with an appended complaint-in-interventioncontaining the required verification and
certificate of non-forum shopping amounted to substantialcompliance of the Rules.
ISSUE:
The court of appeals (cebu city) gravely erred in allowing respondents to intervene?

HELD: YES
At the outset, on the procedural aspect, contrary to petitioners contention, the initial lack of the complaint-in-
intervention of the requisite verification and certification on non-forum shopping was cured when theintervenors,
in their motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to intervene, appended acomplaint-in-
intervention containing the required verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.Moreover, as to the
certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlikein verification, is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is aneed to relax the Rules
on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances orcompelling reasons. Also, the
certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs orpetitioners in a case; otherwise, those
who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Underreasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as
when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a commoninterest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certificationagainst forum shopping substantially complies with the
Rule.Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not srcinally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes alitigant
therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by
suchproceedings. It is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to
makehimself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with
defendantin resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or
proceedingby which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of
court, ofa person not an srcinal party to pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party
theretofor the protection of some right of interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings.
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court:
Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a person has (1) a legal interest in the matter inlitigation; (2)
or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is sosituated as to be
adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court oran officer
thereof .[18]Moreover, the court must take into consideration whether or not the intervention willunduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the srcinal parties, and whether or not theintervenors right or interest
can be adequately pursued and protected in a separate proceeding.In the case at bar, the intervenors are claiming
that they are the legitimate heirs of Estanislao Mioza andInocencia Togono and not the srcinal plaintiffs
represented by Leila Hermosisima. True, if their allegationswere later proven to be valid claims, the intervenors
would surely have a legal interest in the matter inlitigation. Nonetheless, this Court has ruled that the interest
contemplated by law must be actual, substantial,material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent
or expectant. It must be of such direct andimmediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
direct legal operation and effect of thejudgment .[19] Otherwise, if persons not parties to the action were allowed
to intervene, proceedings wouldbecome unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable