G.R. No. 200191 - LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ, VS. NORMA VILLEGAS AND ANY PERSON ACTING IN HER BEHALF INCLUDING HER FAMILY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the MTCC ordered respondents to: (a) vacate the subject property and pay plaintiffs the amount of P1,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the portion of the lot occupied by them, reckoned from the filing of the complaint; (b) pay plaintiffs P10,000.00 as attorneys fees; and (c) pay the cost of suit. [18] Dissatisfied with the MTCCs ruling, respondents filed an appeal [19] before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (RTC), Branch 40, docketed as Civil Case No. 2009-0224-D. The RTC Ruling In a Decision [20] dated March 16, 2010, the RTC, Branch 40 granted respondents appeal and ordered the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint based on the following grounds: ( a ) there was no substantial compliance with the mandatory conciliation and mediation process before the barangay, especially considering that the parties are very close relatives; [21] and ( b ) respondents are builders in good faith and cannot be summarily ejected from the subject property without compliance with the provisions of Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the Civil Code. [22] The RTC, Branch 40 further ordered plaintiffs to jointly and severally pay respondents the amount of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees. [23] Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration [24] which was denied by the RTC, Branch 44 [25] in a Resolution [26] dated August 18, 2010, prompting the filing of the CA petition. The CA Proceedings In response to plaintiffs CA petition, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the grounds that: ( a ) Cecilia failed to personally verify the petition; and ( b ) the appeal is dilatory. [27] In their comment, plaintiffs maintained that Lourdes, as co-owner of the subject property, has the right to file an ejectment case by herself, without joining her co-owner, Cecilia, as provided under Article 487 of the Civil Code. Moreover, Lourdes was specially authorized by Imelda to file the CA petition. [28] In a Resolution [29] dated June 22, 2011, the CA granted respondents Motion to Dismiss Appeal, holding that the verification and certification [30] against forum shopping attached to the CA petition was defective since it was signed only by Lourdes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, in violation of Section 5, [31] Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which requires all the plaintiffs to sign the same. [32] There was also no showing that Lourdes was authorized by her co-plaintiff, Cecilia, to represent the latter and to sign the said certification, and neither did the submission of the special powers of attorney of Cecilia and Imelda to that effect constitute substantial compliance with the rules. [33] The CA further noted that plaintiffs failed to comply with its prior Resolution dated October 11, 2010 requiring the submission of an amended verification/certification against forum shopping within five (5) days from notice, warranting the dismissal of the CA petition on this score. [34] At odds with the CAs resolution, pl