Vda de Melencio

15. Vda. de Melencion v. CA GR No. 148846, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 62 FACTS: The subject property is a 30,351 square meter parcel of land particularly denominated as Lot No. 3368, located at Suba-basbas, Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, and part of total area of 30,777 square meters covered by TCT No. 20626 in the name of the late petitioner Go Kim Chuan. The entire property was originally owned by Esteban Bonghanoy who had only one child, Juana Bonghanoy-Amodia, mother of the late Leoncia Amodia and petitioners Amodias. The entire property was brought under the operation of the Torrens System. However, the title thereto was lost during the Second World War. On July 10, 1964, the Amodias allegedly executed an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale whereby they extra-judicially settled the estate of Esteban Bonghanoy and conveyed the subject property to respondent Aznar Brothers Realty Company for a consideration of P10,200.00. On August 10, 1964, the said Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was registered under Act 3344 as there was no title on file at the Register of Deeds of Lapiu-Lapu City. Thereafter, AZNAR made some improvements and constructed a beach house theron. On February 18, 1989, petitioners executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale, conveying the subject property in favor of Go Kim Chuan for and in consideration of P70,000.00. Aznar then filed a case against petitioners Amodias and Go Kim Chuan for Annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 20626 alleging that the sale to Go Kim Chuan was an invalid second sale. ISSUE:

WON there is a valid certification and verification by only one of the plaintiffs?

HELD: Yes, the Court reiterated the ruling in the case of Iglesia ni Cristo, 505 SCRA 828, that Commonality of interest is material and crucial to relaxation of the Rules. The Rules may be reasonably and liberally construed to avoid a patent denial of substantial justice, because it cannot be denied, that the ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits- after all parties are given full opportunity to ventile their causes and defenses – rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. The same liberality should likewise be applied to the certification against forum shopping. The general rule is that the certification must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed in a number of cases that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions merely underscored its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.