In Lourdes C. Fernandez v. Norma Villegas, the Supreme Court addressed the importance of verification and certification against forum shopping in legal pleadings. The Court ruled that strict compliance with procedural rules can be relaxed when there is substantial compliance, particularly when co-plaintiffs share a common interest. This means that if one party has ample knowledge of the facts and acts in good faith, their signature on the verification and certification may be sufficient. This decision emphasizes that procedural rules should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice, especially when the underlying merits of the case warrant consideration.

Can One Co-Owner’s Signature Validate an Entire Ejectment Case?

The case originated from an ejectment complaint filed by Lourdes C. Fernandez and her sister, Cecilia Siapno, against Norma Villegas, Cecilia’s daughter-in-law, and her family, seeking to recover possession of a parcel of land in Dagupan City. The dispute arose after Villegas and her family, initially allowed to stay on a portion of the property after their house was destroyed, erected a house there despite objections. When the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA), it was dismissed due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping because only Lourdes signed the documents, and there was no explicit authorization from Cecilia. The central legal question was whether the CA erred in dismissing the case outright due to these procedural defects, especially considering the shared interest of the co-plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the issue, relied on established guidelines concerning non-compliance with verification and certification requirements. These guidelines distinguish between defects in verification and those in certification against forum shopping. According to the Court, a defective verification is not necessarily fatal and can be excused if there is substantial compliance. Substantial compliance exists when someone with ample knowledge of the facts swears to the truth of the allegations in the pleading, and the matters are alleged in good faith. The Court emphasized that verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, intended to ensure the truthfulness of the pleading.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the certification against forum shopping, which typically requires all plaintiffs or petitioners to sign. However, the Court recognized exceptions under reasonable circumstances, such as when all parties share a common interest and a common cause of action or defense. In such cases, the signature of only one party may suffice. The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of balancing procedural compliance with the need to serve justice, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules should not be applied so strictly as to undermine the merits of a case. In this case, both Lourdes and Cecilia, as co-owners, shared a common interest in the ejectment suit, making Lourdes’s signature sufficient.

The Court referred to Ingles v. Estrada, providing a comprehensive framework for addressing non-compliance issues related to verification and certification against forum shopping. These guidelines, as cited in Altres v. Empleo, emphasize the distinction between the two requirements. Verification defects can be cured, but certification defects are generally not curable unless there is substantial compliance or special circumstances. All plaintiffs typically must sign the certification; however, exceptions exist when they share a common interest. Here’s a summary of the guidelines:

Aspect	Rule	Curability
Verification	Ensures truthfulness of allegations	Defect is curable; substantial compliance may suffice
Certification Against Forum Shopping	Confirms no similar cases filed	Defect is generally not curable unless substantial compliance or special circumstances exist

Applying these principles, the Court found that Lourdes, as a co-owner and resident of the property, had ample knowledge to verify the CA petition. This aligns with Article 487 of the Civil Code, which allows any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment without needing to join all other co-owners, because the suit benefits everyone. Considering Lourdes and Cecilia’s shared interest and the fact that the petition was filed on behalf of both, the Court concluded that Lourdes’s signature constituted substantial compliance. The Supreme Court cited Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, emphasizing that when immediate relatives share a common interest in the property, the signature of only one petitioner is sufficient.

[W]here the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action.

The Supreme Court also reasoned that the rules on forum shopping, like verification, aim to ensure the orderly administration of justice. Therefore, they should not be interpreted so rigidly as to defeat their legitimate objectives. Substantial compliance fulfills the mandatory nature of these requirements, allowing flexibility under justifiable circumstances. Because there was substantial compliance at the outset, the plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended verification and certification, as directed by the CA, should not have led to the dismissal of the CA petition.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, where only one of the co-plaintiffs signed the documents.
What is verification in legal pleadings?	Verification is a formal requirement ensuring that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. It is intended to secure an assurance of good faith in the averments of a party.
What is a certification against forum shopping?	A certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement by the plaintiff that they have not filed any similar action in any other court or tribunal. This prevents parties from pursuing multiple cases simultaneously.
What does substantial compliance mean in this context?	Substantial compliance means that the essential requirements of the rule have been met, even if there are minor defects. In this case, it meant that Lourdes’s signature was sufficient because she had ample knowledge of the facts and shared a common interest with her co-plaintiff.
When can the requirement for all plaintiffs to sign be relaxed?	The requirement can be relaxed when all plaintiffs share a common interest and cause of action, such as in this case where the co-owners were seeking to recover possession of their property.
What is the significance of Article 487 of the Civil Code in this case?	Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any co-owner to bring an action for ejectment without needing to join all other co-owners. This provision supported the Court’s finding that Lourdes could file the case on behalf of herself and her sister.
What was the Court’s final ruling?	The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, and reinstated the case, remanding it to the CA for proper disposition.
Why did the Court reinstate the case despite the procedural defects?	The Court found that there was substantial compliance with the procedural requirements. Lourdes, as a co-owner with knowledge of the facts, signed the verification and certification in good faith.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Lourdes C. Fernandez v. Norma Villegas highlights the importance of balancing procedural rules with the need for substantial justice. The Court’s recognition of substantial compliance in verification and certification requirements ensures that cases are decided on their merits rather than being dismissed on technicalities, particularly when co-plaintiffs share a common interest and act in good faith.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lourdes C. Fernandez v. Norma Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014