Facts: Casiano Hombria filed a Complaint .for the recovery of a parcel of land against his lessees, spouses Docena. The spouses claimed ownership of the land based on occupation since time immemorial. Trial court ruled in favor of the spouses. On appeal, CA reversed the judgment and ordered the spouses to vacate the land.
Hombria filed a Motion for Execution. The motion was granted.
Spouses filed a Motion to Set Aside or Defer the Implementation of Writ of Demolition. This motion was denied.
A Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed by the petitioners with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge. CA dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition was filed beyond the 60-day period provided under Revised Rules of Civil Procedure and that the certification of non-forum shopping attached thereto was signed by only one of the spouses. The MR filed by the spouses was denied.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
Held: The petition is meritorious.
The spouses argue that since they are spouses with joint or indivisible interest over the alleged conjugal property subject of the original action, the signing of the certificate of non-forum shopping by only one of them would suffice. Moreover, there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Court where the certification was signed by the husband who is the statutory administrator of the conjugal property.
It has been our previous ruling that the certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
The subject Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping signed by the Antonio Docena alone should be deemed to constitute substantial compliance with the rules. There are only two petitioners in this case and they are husband and wife. Their residence is the subject property alleged to be conjugal in the instant verified petition.
The property subject of the original action for recovery is conjugal. Whether it is conjugal under the NCC or the FC, it is believed that the certificate on non-forum shopping filed in the CA constitutes sufficient compliance with the rules.
Under the NCC, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. In fact, he is the sole administrator, and the wife is not entitled as a matter of right to join him in this endeavor. The husband may defend the conjugal partnership without being joined by the wife. The husband alone may execute the necessary certificate of non-forum shopping. The husband as the statutory administrator of the conjugal property could have filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition alone, without the concurrence of the wife. If 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.
Under the FC, the administration of the conjugal property belongs to the husband and the wife jointly. However, unlike an act of alienation or encumbrance where the consent of both spouses is required, joint management or administration does not require that the husband and wife always act together. Each spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone, subject to the intervention of the court in proper cases as provided under Article 124 of the Family Code.
Even under the provisions of the Family Code, the husband alone could have filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition to contest the writs of demolition issued against the conjugal property with the CA without being joined by his wife. The signing of the attached certificate of non-forum shopping only by the husband is not a fatal defect.
No comments:
Post a Comment