Spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena vs Judge Ricardo Lapesura

written by Howard

G.R. No. 140153 – 355 SCRA 658 – 407 Phil. 1007 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Substantial Compliance with the Rule on Non-Forum Shopping

Spouses Antonio and Alfreda Docena were allegedly lessees of Casiano Hombria of a parcel of land located in Eastern Samar. Hombria filed a complaint for the recovery of the said land by reason of the spouses’ failure to pay rent. The spouses however argue that they own the land since time immemorial.

In November 1989, Judge Ricardo Lapesura issued an order in favor of the spouses Docena. The decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals and the latter court ordered the spouses to vacate the premises. When the order of the Court of Appeals became final and executory, Hombria filed a Motion for Execution which Judge Lapesura granted and a Writ of Execution was issued. The court sheriff, Rufino Garado, after some other clarification by the trial court, issued a Writ of Demolition against the spouses. The spouses then filed a Motion to Set Aside the Writ of Demolition which was denied by Lapesura. The spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied too.

Undeterred, the spouses filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion against Lapesura in issuing his orders denying the spouses’ motions.

The Court of Appeals however denied the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition as it turned out that only the husband (Antonio Docena) signed the attached Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Petition filed by the spouses should prosper.

HELD: Yes. There is substantial compliance in the case at bar which warrant the allowance of the Petition. The signing of the husband alone is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition) in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46 (Original Cases Filed in the Court of Appeals). Since the spouses are with joint or indivisible interest over the alleged conjugal property subject of the original action which gave rise to the petition for certiorari and prohibition, the signing of the certificate of non-forum shopping by only one of them would suffice, especially considering the long distance they had to travel just to sign the said certificate. Moreover, it should be noted that husband is the statutory administrator of the conjugal property. (But of course, the determination of whether or not the property is really conjugal is not upon the Supreme Court in the case at bar).

Note also that suits to defend an interest in the conjugal properties may be filed by the husband alone, with more reason, he may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached to the petition.

Read full text here.