THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201868. August 20, 2014.]
FARMER-BENEFICIARIES BELONGING TO THE SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG BAGUMBONG, JALAJALA, RIZAL, REPRESENTED BY THEIR PRESIDENT, TORIBIO M. MALABANAN, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF JULIANA M. MARONILLA, REPRESENTED BY RAMON M. MARONILLA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 20, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201868 (Farmer-Beneficiaries belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal, represented by their President, Toribio M. Malabanan v. Heirs of Juliana M. Maronilla, represented by Ramon M. Maronilla). — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the July 28, 2011 Decision 1 and the May 9, 2012 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 108543, which affirmed the August 29, 2008 and April 1, 2009 Orders 3 of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which, in turn, partially approved the respondent's Application for Exemption Clearance from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coverage.
The Factual Antecedents:
In 2006, the Heirs of Juliana M. Maronilla, (respondents) filed before the DAR their "Application for Exemption Clearance from CARP Coverage pursuant to Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994" involving thirteen (13) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 476.5006 hectares, more or less, situated in Jalajala, Rizal. Respondents prayed that the subject property, which had allegedly been classified as residential, institutional, agro-industrial, commercial and forest zone in 1981 under Zoning Ordinance No. 17 of Jalajala, Rizal, be exempted from CARP coverage and that all Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) and Emancipation Patents (EP) issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion be declared void ab initio.
On May 7, 2007, the petitioners, Farmer-Beneficiaries belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal (petitioners), filed their "Petition for Intervention Controverting the Application for Exemption filed by the Heirs of Juliana Maronilla." 4 Petitioners were Awardees of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)-EPs and TCT-CLOAs under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 as indicated in the memorandum of encumbrances annotated in the titles of the subject landholdings. 5
Petitioners alleged the following: ". . . that in 1973, the subject property was placed under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27; that the bulk of which was distributed to petitioners under PD 27 and RA 6657; that, in fact, transfer certificates of title in their names had been issued and entered in the Register of Deeds; and that Barangay Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal, where the property is located, is A DAR-designated Agrarian Reform Community and is also the vegetable basin of the town." 6
On June, 2006 the DAR Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI) conducted an ocular inspection of the area relevant to the application filed by petitioners. This prompted petitioners to file their petition for intervention. On August 29, 2008, the DAR Secretary ordered the partial approval of the respondents' Application for Exemption to the extent of 447.4025 hectares. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on April 1, 2009.
On May 18, 2009, a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was filed by petitioners before the CA. In the Assailed decision, dated July 28, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition because the verification and certification against forum shopping was defective. It found that only 127 of the 128 named petitioners were actual signatories and that none of the 127 presented competent evidence of identity, most having only presented Community Tax Certificates (CTC) before the notary. Upon being given the chance to comply with the rules, only 26 of the 127 signatories sufficiently complied. The CA opined that it could not presume (1) that the other 101 petitioners had read the pleading and the allegations were true and correct based on their personal knowledge, and (2) that the 26 petitioners had personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by their co-petitioners of any action or claim similar to the current petition. It also noted that no plausible explanation was offered for their non-compliance. DETACa
The CA further held that petitioners did not have a joint interest over the parcels of land considering that they had separate titles to the properties in dispute; and that even assuming that they did have a joint interest, there was still a need to establish that each of them signed the petition and personally acknowledged such before a notary public. It also considered as an act of deception the fact that eight (8) of the petitioners were already dead at the time the petition was allegedly signed, verified, and acknowledged.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in the assailed resolution, dated May 9, 2012.
Hence, this petition.
On October 9, 2012, respondents filed their Comment. 7 On January 25, 2013, petitioners filed their Manifestation 8 informing the Court that they would adopt their petition as their Reply.
The Court notes that the non-compliance of petitioners stemmed from their failure to present competent evidence of identity, all of them having only presented CTCs. In one case, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was marred only by a glitch in the evidence of their identity. The Court held therein that this minor defect should not defeat the petition and was one that could be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. 9 In another case, the submission of CTCs as evidence of identity was deemed to be substantial compliance. 10
In this case, the Court finds that petitioners' failure to present competent evidence of identity can be overlooked. Section 1 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court provides that the "rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."
Nonetheless, even if petitioners' CTCs were not considered competent evidence of identity, there was still substantial compliance with the requirements on verification and certification against non-forum shopping.
The oft-cited Altres v. Empleo11 has laid down the guidelines respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping, to wit:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. 12
The verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to simply secure an assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. This is why the court may order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules. The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification; and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. 13 There is, therefore, substantial compliance if at least one of the petitioners makes a proper verification. 14 In the present case, 26 of the 127 petitioners validly signed the verification with the proper identification documents; therefore, there was substantial compliance with the verification requirement. EIcSTD
Anent the certification against forum shopping, the general rule is that such must be signed by all the petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties. This does not, however, prohibit substantial compliance therewith under justifiable circumstances or in the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons, considering especially that although the certificate is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. 15 One such circumstance is when all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, in which case, the signature of only one of them would constitute substantial compliance with the Rule.
Contrary to the ruling of the CA, petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common position. HLC Construction and Development Association v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association16 is on point. In the said case, the respondents were residents of a subdivision who sued the petitioner for breach of contract and payment of damages for the poor construction of their houses. The Court held that the respondents therein shared a common interest in the subject matter of the case and it was sufficient that only one of them signed the certificate of non-forum shopping. It was so held despite the fact that the common cause of action of breach of contract was based on separate contracts, for each house of each resident.
In the present case, petitioners are all farmer-beneficiaries belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong, all holders of TCT-EPs or TCT-CLOAs pertaining to the land covered by respondent's application for CARP exemption. They all have a common defense, being awardees to title of the land covered by the OLT program of the government under P.D. No. 27, which is a ground for denial of an application for CARP exemption. It cannot be gainsaid that petitioners have a common interest in the subject matter of the case, regardless of the fact that they hold separate titles. The signatures of 26 of the petitioners with valid evidence of identity are, therefore, sufficient. The Court has 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 their own ultimate and legitimate objective. 17
WHEREFORE, the July 28, 2011 Decision and the May 9, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108543 are SET ASIDE. Petitioners' appeal is REINSTATED and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for its decision on the merits. (Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave; Carpio, J., designated Additional Member, per Special Order No. 1756, dated August 20, 2014)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 29-42, penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario of the Tenth Division, Manila.
2. Id. at 44-45.
3. Id. at 137-146 (August 29, 2008) and pp. 162-165 (April 1, 2009).
4. Id. at 94-99.
5. Id. at 46-79.
6. Id. at 15.
7. Id. at 217-223.
8. Id. at 235-238.
9. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 184977, December 7, 2009, 608 SCRA 16, 27.
10. Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 260-261 (2008).
11. 594 Phil. 246, 260-261 (2008).
12. Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 260-262 (2008).
13. Medado v. Heirs of Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 534, 546.
14. Altres v. Empleo, supra note 11 at 258-260, citing Tan v. Ballena, 579 Phil. 503 (2008).
15. Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 312, 326.
16. 458 Phil. 392 (2003).
17. Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 312, 326.