Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile PDF

Cavile vs.
Heirs of Cavile ▪ Some of them were residing elsewhere at the time

the deed was partitioned.
Doctrine ● Among the grounds invoked by the FIRST and SECOND heirs
● Rule that all must sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is against the appeal to the Supreme Court made by the THIRD is that
substantially complied with when one among relatives and it violates the rule on the certification against forum shopping
co-owners of the property, sharing a common interest thereon, signs. required to be attached to petitions for review filed with this Court.
This is because they share a common interest thereon, and because o Only one of the twenty-two (22) petitioners, Thomas George
they have a common defense in the complaint as well. Cavili, Sr., executed and signed the certification against
Facts forum shopping when the Rules require that said certification
● Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. must be signed by all the petitioners
o 1st – Ines Dumat-ol with whom he had one child – Simplicia
o 2nd – Orfia Colhalho – two kids Fortunato and Vevencia Supreme Court
o 3rd – Tranquilina Galon – three kids Castor, Susana, and ● The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the
Benedicta petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them
● Bernardo acquired six parcels of land during his lifetimes, all of which is insufficient. Note however, that the purpose of te certificate is to
are the subjects of this case. He died. promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Hence it
● The descendants from the FIRST and SECOND marriages should not be interpreted with sucb absolute literalness as to subvert
(respondents) filed a complaint for partition against the descendants its own ultimate and legitimate objective.
from the THIRD marriage (petitioners) o Thus the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of
o FIRST and SECOND alleged that they were the co-owners with respect to the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
of the properties in question, as part of their inheritance from ● The execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the
Bernardo Cavili. other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes
o They said that when Bernardo died, Castor (child from substantial compliance with the Rules.
THIRD) took over the administration of the properties of the ● All the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the
deceased as an administrator of the estate. However, Castor properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon. They
started possessing the properties as an owner, using its also share a common defense in the complaint for partition filed
fruits and refusing the other heirs’ demand for partition. by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they
▪ As of the filing of the case, the THIRD marriage filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their
descendants had already been possessing it for 45 rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis,
years. therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in
● Trial Court ruled in favor of the FIRST and SECOND. It ordered the behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not filed any action or
partition of the six parces of land. However, a new trial was held claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, nor
upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili (case doesn’t say is there other pending action or claim in another court or
sino sila…) who alleged that they weren’t served summons. tribunal involving the same issues.
● Trial Court dismissed the complaint for partition
o This was based on evidence adduced by Primitivo and Other discussion
Quirino that a Deed of Partition was already executed before After a thorough study of the records of this case, we find the petition to be
the case, where descendants from all marriages meritorious. We hold that the trial court was correct in dismissing the
participated. complaint for partition, it appearing that the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavili
● Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision have already divided the properties among themselves, as evidenced by the
o Due execution and genuineness of the Deed of Partition was Deed of Partition.
never proven. FIRST and SECOND were able to cast doubt
as to its authenticity. The document speaks for itself. The foregoing document was acknowledged
▪ Thumbprints of some were merely inkblots before Notary Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book.
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.
The presumption of regularity was not overcome in this case

● Re: inkblot – it’s a signature. Note the visible grooves or lines on the
imprint that indicate that they are not mere drops of ink but an actual
thumbprint.
● Re: residing elsewhere – 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

Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cavile vs.

Heirs of Cavile ▪ Some of them were residing elsewhere at the time

The presumption of regularity was not overcome in this case

You might also like