Gabriel Vs Cebrero

HEIRS OF JOSEFINA GABRIEL vs.
SECUNDINA CEBRERO, CELSO LAVINA, and MANUEL CHUA
FACTS:
Respondent Secundina, through her attorney-in-fact, executed a real estate mortgage over the subject
property located in Sampaloc, Manila. The said property was registered under the name of her late
husband, Virgilio, as security for the payment of 8 million, pursuant to an amicable settlement entered by
the parties in a case of annulment of revocation of donation in a civil case. In the said settlement, Josefina
recognized Cebrero’s absolute ownership of the subject property and relinquished all her claims over the
property in consideration of the payment of the said 8 million.
Cebrero failed to pay within the period of extension, thus Gabriel filed an action for foreclosure of the
real estate mortgage. The RTC ruled in Gabriel’s favor and ordered Cebrero to pay the 8 million and
interest, or the subject property shall be sold at a public auction in default of payment.
The sheriff initiated the necessary proceedings for the auction when no appeal was filed and the decision
of the RTC became final. Gabriel being the sole bidder, purchased Cebrero’s undivided shar of one half
conjugal share plus her inheritance of 1/9 of the subject property.
However, Gabriel had not registered the Final Deed of Sale since she disputed the BIR’s estate tax
assessment on the property considering that she claimed only a portion thereof. It was also during this
time that she discovered the registration of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Celso Lavina, Cebrero’s
attorney-in-fact, purportedly conveying the entire property in favor of Progressive Trade & Services
Enterprises.
Caniza, allegedly in behalf of Gabriel, filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and of the TCT
of the subjected property under Progressive, a single proprietorship represented by its President and
Chairman, respondent Chua.
In their Answer, respondents alleged that Gabriel has no legal capacity to sue as she was bedridden and
confined in Makati Medical. The Complaint should be dismissed because Caniza signed the verification
and certification of the Complaint without proper authority. The RTC Decision in the foreclosure
proceedings was void due to improper service of summons. As a mere creditor, Gabriel cannot annul the
sale of the subject property to Progressive, especially when there was a judicial consignment of the
payment of lien.
Gabriel died during the pendency of the case, thus her heirs substituted her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the complain on the sole basis of mere technicality that the
verification and certification of the non-forum shopping was not supported with the SPA of Atty. Caniza
RULING:
NO.
As to the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, the Court, in Altres, et al. v. Empleo, et
al. laid down the following guidelines:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential
pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or
submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
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".
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.
Section 5,Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification against forum shopping must be
executed by the plaintiff or principal party. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or the principal knows
better than anyone, whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially
the same issues. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his
behalf must have been duly authorized.
The complaint filed before the RTC was filed in the name of Gabriel, however, it was Cañiza who
executed the verification and certification of forum shopping, alleging that he was Gabriel's attorney-in-
fact.
It was held that when an SPA was constituted precisely to authorize the agent to file and prosecute suits
on behalf of the principal, then it is such agent who has actual and personal knowledge whether he or she
has initiated similar actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on the principal's
behalf, thus, satisfying the requirements for a valid certification against forum shopping. The rationale
behind the rule that it must be the "petitioner or principal party himself" who should sign such
certification does not apply. Thus, the rule on the certification against forum shopping has been properly
complied with when it is the agent or attorney-in-fact who initiated the action on the principal's behalf and
who signed the certification against forum shopping.
However, there was no duly executed SPA appended to the complaint to prove Cañiza's supposed
authority to file and prosecute suits on behalf of Gabriel. The Court cannot consider the mere mention in
the December 15, 1993 Decision that he was Gabriel's attorney-in-fact as evidence that he was indeed
authorized and empowered to initiate the instant action against respondents. There was also no evidence
of substantial compliance with the rules or even an attempt to submit an SPA after filing of the complaint.
This Court expounded that the complaint filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff by one who is
unauthorized to do so is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.
Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint
and the plaintiff.

Gabriel Vs Cebrero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gabriel Vs Cebrero

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gabriel Vs Cebrero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIRS OF JOSEFINA GABRIEL vs.

SECUNDINA CEBRERO, CELSO LAVINA, and MANUEL CHUA

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike

You might also like