10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago
*

G.R. No. 161817. July 30, 2004.

DANIEL D. CELINO, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ALEJO

and TERESA SANTIAGO, respondents.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Demurrer to Evidence; Words

and Phrases; A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the
plaintiff rests his case; The evidence contemplated by the rule on
demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case—lack of
legal capacity to sue is not a proper ground for a demurrer to
evidence, pertaining as it does to a technical aspect, and it having
nothing to do with the evidence on the merits of the complaint.—A
demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests
his case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a
case or sustain the issue. The evidence contemplated by the rule
on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case.
Thus, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, lack of legal
capacity to sue is not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence,
pertaining as it does to a technical aspect, and it having nothing
to do with the evidence on the merits of the complaint.
Consequently, petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence and Motion for
Reconsideration should be denied, as the trial court did.
Same; Same; Co-Ownership; Parties; As co-owners of the
properties, each of the heirs may properly bring an action for
ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of action for the
recovery of possession of the subject properties.—Anent the second
issue, we hold that the Complaint may not be dismissed on
account of the failure of the other plaintiffs to execute and sign
the certification against non-forum shopping. Respondents herein
are co-owners of two parcels of land owned by their deceased
mother. The properties were allegedly encroached upon by the
petitioner. As co-owners of the properties, each of the heirs may
properly bring an

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

691

VOL. 435, JULY 30, 2004 691

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago

action for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of

action for the recovery of possession of the subject properties.
Thus, a co-owner may bring such an action, even without joining
all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed
to be instituted for the benefit of all. However, if the action is for
the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims the
possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action
will not prosper.
Courts; Judges; Trial court judge in the instant case is well-
advised to be prudent and meticulous in appreciating the
documents and evidence presented before him.—As correctly
pointed out by the petitioner, the said instruments were grants of
authority to plaintiffs’ counsel to represent them in the pre-trial
conference and cannot in any way be constituted as a source of
authority for Juliet Santiago to be the legal representative of her
co-heirs. As such, plaintiff Juliet Santiago has not in fact
presented any evidence supporting her claim that she is the duly
constituted representative of the other named plaintiffs in the
Complaint. Despite the very clear wording of the instruments, the
trial court failed to appreciate the import of the same and equated
the Special Powers of Attorney executed in favor of counsel to an
authorization in favor of Juliet Santiago. In this regard, Judge
Antonio Reyes of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu is well-advised
to be prudent and meticulous in appreciating the documents and
evidence presented before him. The duty to be well-informed of
the law and legal procedures is ingrained in the position of court
judge.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Ronald M. Celino for petitioner.
Juan Alberto for respondents.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:
1

Before us is a petition for review of the Decision of the

Court of Appeals
2 promulgated on 28 October 2002 and its
Resolution promulgated on 14 January 2004 denying
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

_______________

1 Promulgated by Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, concurred in by

Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente; Rollo, p. 119.
2 Id., at p. 133.

692

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago

The case stemmed from an action for Quieting of Title,

Recovery of Possession and Damages with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
filed by the heirs of Alejo and3 Teresa Santiago against
herein petitioner
4 Daniel Celino. Petitioner filed a Motion
to Dismiss, alleging that complainant Juliet Santiago did
not have the legal capacity to sue, since she did not have
the corresponding written authority to represent her co-
plaintiffs, and since the Complaint failed to state a cause of
action. The trial court, presided by Judge Antonio C. Reyes,
denied the said motion on the ground that the issues posed 5

by petitioner could best be resolved during the trial. 6 It

likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Thereafter, pre-trial was held. There, plaintiff Juliet
Santiago presented7 through counsel, a copy of the Special
Power of Attorney executed by Virginia S. Robertson and
Gloria S. Tinoyan, two of the plaintiffs in the Complaint,
authorizing counsels Juan Antonio R. Alberto III and
Alexander A. Galpo to represent them in the pretrial of the8
case. Likewise submitted was a Special Power of Attorney
executed by Romeo Santiago, Juliet Santiago and Larry
Santiago in favor of above-named counsels to represent
them in the pretrial conference.
Trial ensued and plaintiffs therein, now respondents,
presented9 their evidence. Petitioner filed a Demurrer to
Evidence, still on the ground of Juliet Santiago’s alleged
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

lack of legal capacity to sue. Petitioner claimed that the

evidence presented by Santiago should not be admitted
since she failed to present any evidence of authority to file
the complaint for and in behalf10 of her co-plaintiffs. In an
Order dated 29 April 2002, Judge Reyes denied the
Demurrer, stating that Juliet Santiago had submitted the
necessary authori-

_______________

3 Civil Case No. 4477-R before Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court,
First Judicial Region, Baguio City. Rollo, pp. 43-55.
4 Rollo, p. 56.
5 Id., at p. 64.
6 Id., at p. 69.
7 Id., at p. 139.
8 Id., at p. 141.
9 Id., at p. 83.
10 Id., at p. 94.

693

VOL. 435, JULY 30, 2004 693

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago

zation. On 10 July 2002,11 the Judge denied 12 petitioner’s

Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Petitioner13 thereafter filed a Petition For Review on
Certiorari, seeking to nullify and set aside the 29 April
2002 and the 10 July 2002 orders of the trial court. In its
Decision dated 28 October 2003, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition, stating that petitioner’s allegation
of lack of legal capacity to sue is not the ground
contemplated by the Rules of 14Court to support an adverse
party’s Demurrer to Evidence. 15Thereafter, petitioner filed
his Motion16 for Reconsideration, which was denied for lack
of merit.
Petitioner now submits the following issues:

I. WHETHER OR NOT A DEMURRER TO

EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 33 OF THE REVISED
RULES OF COURT MAY BE RESORTED TO
WHEN CLEARLY THE COMPLAINT (SIC) HAS
NO AUTHORITY TO SUE FOR AND IN BEHALF
OF HER CO-PLAINTIFFS.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT MAY BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF CO-PLAINTIFFS

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

TO EXECUTE AND SIGN THE CERTIFICATION

17

AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING.

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the

ground of insufficiency of 18evidence and is presented after
the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the
parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which
his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law,
whether
19 true or not, to make out a case or sustain the
issue. The evidence contemplated by the rule on20demurrer
is that which pertains to the merits of the case. Thus, as
correctly held by the Court of Appeals, lack of legal
capacity to sue

_______________

11 Id., at p. 95.
12 Id., at p. 103.
13 Id., at p. 19.
14 Id., at p. 126.
15 Id., at p. 128.
16 Id., at p. 133.
17 Id., at p. 8.
18 Florenz D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. 1, p.
354 (1997).
19 Gutib v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 293, 300; 312 SCRA 365, 371
(1999), citing BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Ed., p. 390 (1979).
20 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 275
SCRA 433, 440 (1997).

694

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago

is not a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence,

pertaining as it does to a technical aspect, and it having
nothing to do with the evidence on the merits of the
complaint. Consequently, petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence
and Motion for Reconsideration should be denied, as the
trial court did.
Anent the second issue, we hold that the Complaint may
not be dismissed on account of the failure of the other
plaintiffs to execute and sign the certification against non-
forum shopping.
Respondents herein are co-owners of two parcels of land
owned by their deceased mother. The properties were

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

allegedly encroached upon by the petitioner. As co-owners

of the properties, each21 of the heirs may properly bring
22 an
action for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any
kind of action
23 for the recovery of possession of the subject
properties. Thus, a co-owner may bring such an action,
even without joining all the other co-owners as co-
plaintiffs, because24 the suit is deemed to be instituted for
the benefit of all. However, if the action is for the benefit
of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims the possession for
himself 25and not for the co-ownership, the action will not
prosper.
It is clear from the Complaint that the same was made
precisely to recover possession of the properties owned in
common, and as such, will redound to the benefit of all the
co-owners. Indeed, in the verification of the Complaint,
Juliet Santiago claimed that she caused the preparation
and the filing of the said pleading as a co-owner of the
subject properties and as a representative of the other
plaintiffs. Hence, the instant case may prosper even
without the authorization from Juliet Santiago’s co-
plaintiffs.
From the procedural perspective, the instant petition
should also fail. Petitioner questioned Juliet Santiago’s
authority to sue in behalf of his co-plaintiffs in his Motion
to Dismiss dated 24 August 1999, which the lower court
denied in its Order dated 16 March 2000. After filing a
motion for reconsideration dated 30 March

_______________

21 Art. 487 of the Civil Code.

22 Sering v. Plazo, 166 SCRA 85, 86 (1999) citing Vencilao v.
Camarenta, 29 SCRA 473 [1969]).
23 Arturo M. Tolentino, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE
ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. II, p. 170, (1992).
24 Sering v. Plaza, supra, citing Tolentino, Civil Code (1983).
25 Tolentino, supra, citing Sentencia of 17 June 1927.

695

VOL. 435, JULY 30, 2004 695

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago

2000, as well as a Supplemental 26 to Motion for

Reconsideration dated 11 April 2000, which the lower
court denied in its Order dated 02 May 2000, he did
nothing until he filed the Demurrer to Evidence dated 11
February 2002. But that was after the pre-trial and trial on
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

the merits were conducted and plaintiffs had presented

their evidence-in-chief. On the assumption that the lower
court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the
Motion to Dismiss’ petitioner as defendant should have
filed the corresponding petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals. He
failed to do so within the period prescribed therefor, which
is not later than sixty (60) days from notice
27 of the order
denying the motion for reconsideration. Thus, it is clear
that even his petition under Rule 65 before the Court of
Appeals was filed way28 out of time, it having been presented
only on 31 July 2002.
While the instant petition seeks only to resolve the
above-stated issues, this Court will not close its eyes to any
irregularity or defect in any decision or disposition, which,
if tolerated, may result
29 to confusion, and even injustice to
any of the litigants.
In the instant case, not only was the trial court
miscreant in appreciating the documents presented before
it, it was also injudicious in its understanding of the nature
of a demurrer to evidence.
Relying on the two Special Powers of Attorney presented
by the plaintiff, the trial court denied petitioner’s Demurrer
to Evidence in the following manner:

“Considering that plaintiff Juliet Santiago has submitted the

necessary Special Power of Authority from her co-
plaintiffs authorizing her to institute the instant action
against the defendant,
30 the Demurrer to Evidence is denied for
lack of merit.” (emphasis supplied)

As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, the said

instruments were grants of authority to plaintiffs’ counsel
to represent them in

_______________

26 Rollo, p. 67.
27 Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
28 Rollo, p. 19.
29 Antonio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 216 SCRA 214, 220 (1992).
30 Rollo, p. 94.

696

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

the pre-trial conference and cannot in any way be

constituted as a source of authority for Juliet Santiago to
be the legal representative of her co-heirs. As such, plaintiff
Juliet Santiago has not in fact presented any evidence
supporting her claim that she is the duly constituted
representative of the other named plaintiffs in the
Complaint. Despite the very clear wording of the
instruments, the trial court failed to appreciate the import
of the same and equated the Special Powers of Attorney
executed in favor of counsel to an authorization in favor of
Juliet Santiago.
In this regard, Judge Antonio Reyes of the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu is well-advised to be prudent and
meticulous in appreciating the documents and evidence
presented before him. The duty to be well-informed of the
law and legal procedures is ingrained in the position of
court judge.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack
of merit. The assailed Decision dated 28 October 2002 and
the Resolution dated 14 January 2004 are hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.

Notes.—The grant of the motion to dismiss by the Court

a quo and the reversal thereof by the appellate court does
not have the effect of disentitling the movant to submit
further evidence, unlike the rule in regard to demurrer to
evidence under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court. (Home
Savings Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, 237
SCRA 360 [1994])
Whoever avails of a demurrer to evidence gambles his
right to adduce evidence. (Quebral vs. Court of Appeals, 252
SCRA 353 [1996])

——o0o——

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/9
10/11/23, 5:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 435

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018b1dfe52b976209a00000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/9