VOL.

400, APRIL 1, 2003 255

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
*
G.R. No. 148635. April 1, 2003.

MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE, DON C. DELA CRUZ, JOSE

C. DELA CRUZ, JR., SOLON C. DELA CRUZ, JAMELA
CAVILE BACOLINAO, HENRIETTA GELLEGANI
CAVILE, BERNARDO CAVILE, LAWRENCE CAVILE,
FRANCIS CAVILE REEVES, ROY CAVILE, PRIMITIVO
CAVILE, JR., NATIVIDAD CAVILE MINGOY, AGUSTIN
CAVILE, DIANA ROSE CAVILE DELA ROSA, THOMAS
GEORGE CAVILE, SR., HENRY CAVILE, MANUEL
AARON CAVILE, ALEXANDER CAVILE, WILFREDO
CAVILE, FE CAVILE DAGUIO, and HOPE CAVILE
ARCHER, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF CLARITA CAVILE,
ULPIANO CAVILE, PLACIDA CAVILE, GREGORIO
CAVILE, FORTUNATA CAVILE, AMILITA CAVILE, APAD
CAVILE, AQUILINA CAVILE, CRESENCIO CAVILE,
ALMA CAVILE, JESUS CAVILE, ROMAN BANTILAN,
GREGORIO BANTILAN, FELOMINA PAREJA,
ESPERANZA PAREJA, DIONESA PAREJA, TEODULO
TACANG, RAMONA TACANG, FABIAN TACANG,
COSME TA-

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

CANG, CRESENCIO TACANG, CONSOLACION

TACANG, TERESITA TACANG, PRIMITIVO TACANG,
LEODEGARIO TACANG, BRENDA MAPUTI, LORNA
MAPUTI, ADELINA MAPUTI, SUSAN MAPUTI,
LOURDES MAPUTI, FRANKLIN MAPUTI, SALLY
MAPUTI, JESUS MAPUTI, FRANCISCO MAPUTI,
VICTORIO SUNLIT, BARTOLOME SUNLIT, TEOFILO
SUNLIT, TIBURCIO SUNLIT, TITO SUNLIT, ASUNCION
SUNLIT, CATALINA SUNLIT, RAYMONDA SUNLIT,
ISIDRO SUNLIT, ROSAL GALAN, FRANCISCO GALAN,
ROMUALDO QUIANZO, JUSTO QUIANZO, LEONIDAD
QUIANZO, JULITA QUIANZO, SOCORRO QUIANZO,
MARGARITO QUIANZO, CASTOR QUIANZO, JUSTINA
LITANIA, GENOVEVA LITANIA, FELICIDAD LITANIA,
BIENVENIDO CAVILE, REPELITO GALON, FELOMENA
NAVARRA, IRENE NAVARRA, RAYMUNDO NAVARRA,
PEDRO NAVARRA, ESTELA NAVARRA, CLEMENCIA
NAVARRA, FORTUNATA NAVARRA, LOURDES
NAVARRA, VICTORIANO NAVARRA, EUSTAQUIO
LUYAS, and FORTUNATA LUYAS, respondents.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Parties; Certificate of Non-

Forum Shopping; The rule is that the certificate of non-forum
shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case
and the signing by only one of them is insufficient; The rule of
substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents
of the certification since the requirement of strict compliance with
the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping
merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification
cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded.·The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping
must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the
signing by only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has
also stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were
designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice, 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 regarding the certification of
non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in
that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. It does not thereby interdict
substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The execution by one of the
petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes
substantial compliance with the Rules where all the petitioners,
being relatives and co-owners of

257

VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003 257

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

the properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon, aside

from sharing a common defense in the complaint for partition filed
by the respondents; The merits of the substantive aspects of the case
may be deemed as „special circumstance‰ for the Court to take
cognizance of a petition for review although the certification against
forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the
petitioners.·We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile,
Sr. in behalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-
forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules.
All the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties
in dispute, share a common interest thereon. They also share a
common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the
respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they filed it
as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights over
the properties in question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for
Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-
petitioners that they have not filed any action or claim involving the
same issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending
action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same
issues. Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the substantive
aspects of the case may be deemed as „special circumstance‰ for the
Court to take cognizance of a petition for review although the
certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by
only one of the petitioners.
Notarial Law; Evidence; Documents acknowledged before
notaries public are public documents which are admissible in
evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their
authenticity and due execution.·The document speaks for itself.
The foregoing document was acknowledged before Notary Public
Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book as „Reg. Not. No.
41; Pag. 100; Lib. II, Serie de 1937.‰ Documents acknowledged
before notaries public are public documents which are admissible in
evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their
authenticity and due execution. They enjoy the presumption of
regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To
overcome the presumption, there must be evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant. Absent such
evidence, the presumption must be upheld.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Erneto M. Tomaneng, Jose F. Muñoz, Lenin R.
Victoriano and Mario P. Victoriano for petitioners.
Guilbert P. Zulueta for respondents.

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated December 21, 2000 in** CA-G.R. CV. No.
36617 entitled „Heirs of Clarita Cavili, et al. vs. Heirs of
Perfecta Cavili, et al.‰ reversing the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 36 in Civil
Case No. 6880 for Partition, Accounting and Damages, and
its Resolution dated June 28, 2001 denying the motion for
reconsideration.
This case has its roots in the complaint filed by the
respondents against the petitioners for partition of the
properties left by their common ascendant, Bernardo
Cavili.
It appears that Bernardo Cavili contracted three
marriages. The first marriage was with Ines Dumat-ol with
whom he had one child, Simplicia. The second was with
Orfia Colalho with whom he had two children: Fortunato
and Vevencia. And the third was with Tranquilina Galon
with whom he had three children: Castor, Susana and
Benedicta. Throughout his lifetime, Bernardo Cavili
acquired six parcels of land which became the subject of the
instant case.
In October 1977, the descendants of BernardoÊs first and
second marriage (herein respondents) filed a complaint for
partition against the descendants of his third marriage
(herein petitioners). The complaint alleged, among others,
that respondents and petitioners were co-owners of the
properties in question, having inherited the same from
Bernardo Cavili. Upon the death of Bernardo, his son by
his third marriage, Castor Cavili, took possession of the
properties as administrator for and in behalf of his co-
owners. However, when Castor died, his children took
possession of the parcels of land but no longer as
administrators. They claimed the properties as well as
their fruits as their own and repeatedly refused
respondentsÊ demand for partition.
As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the
reglementary period, they were declared in default and
respondents were allowed to present evidence, ex parte.
The trial court rendered a decision on October 1
5, 1979
ordering the partition of the six parcels of land. However,
upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili who

_______________

** Sometimes spelled in the records as „Cavile.‰

1 Original Records, vol. 1, pp. 47-51.

259

VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003 259

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

were not properly served with summons, the trial court

held a new trial and allowed said parties to present
evidence. Among the evidence they proferred was a Deed of
Partition which appeared to have been2 executed by the
heirs of Bernardo Cavili on April 5, 1937. Giving weight to
the documentary evidence presented by Primitivo Cavili
and Quirino Cavili, the trial court rendered another
decision 3on May 7, 1991 dismissing the complaint for
partition. The court reasoned:

„x x x
The court observes that there is only one important issue in this
case, that is, was there already division or partition made by the co-
owners of the properties left by the deceased Bernardo Cavili. All
other issues are subsidiary. Partition is the division of the property
or properties by those entitled to them with the desire to put an end
to co-ownership. In 1937, a document of partition, marked as
Exhibit „1‰ for the defendants, was executed, it is known as Doc.
No. 41; Book No. II; Page No. 100; Series of 1937; and ratified by
Notary Public Iluminado Golez; which reveals Simplicia Cavili, the
only child of Bernardo Cavili of his first marriage, participated and
concurred in the same partition; likewise, the children of the second
marriage, were also represented and also the spouse Tranquilina
Galon of the third marriage gave her concurrence as well as her
legitimate children had with the deceased Bernardo Cavili. In the
said document, all the parcels of land acquired during the third
marriage were partitioned into two (2) parts: one part pertained to
Bernardo Cavili which in turn divided by his children, namely:
Simplicia Cavili, the only child of the first marriage, Lucio Cavili in
representation of Fortunato Cavili eldest son in the second
marriage; Vicenta Navarra in representation of Vevencia Cavili
second child of the second marriage; and Susana Cavili, Castor
Cavili and Benedicta Cavili, the third marriage; and the second
part, or the other half, was equally divided by the three children of
the third marriage, namely: Susana, Castor and Benedicta, all
surnamed Cavili.
That the court observed further, that in the same document of
deed of partition the share of Bernardo, Cavili which was up to the
extent of one-half (1/2) share of the conjugal properties with
Tranquilina Galon was sold to Castor Cavili for the sum of P166.00
by his legal heirs, likewise, the other one-half (1/2) share of
Tranquilina Galon was sold for the same amount by her rightful
heirs in favor also of Castor Cavili, who in turn took immediate
possession, exercised acts of ownership and made subsequent
transfers. Likewise, other heirs of Bernardo Cavili did the same act
of subsequent transfers of what they had inherited just as the heirs
of

_______________

2 Exhibit „1‰, Original Records, vol. 5, pp. 1047-1050.

3 Id., vol. 5, pp. 1112-1116.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

Tranquilina Galon also made subsequent transfer of what they

succeeded as inheritance.
x x x‰
Respondents appealed the case to the Court of Appeals
raising the following errors:

1. The court a quo erred in concluding that the

properties in question were partitioned in 1937;
2. The court a quo erred in admitting the Deed of
Partition (Exhibit „1‰); and
4
3. The court a quo erred in dismissing the complaint.

The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court.

It ruled that the trial court erred in admitting the Deed of
Partition as evidence without proof of its authenticity and
due execution. It held that said Deed cannot be considered
as an ancient document whose authenticity and due
execution need not be proved as the respondents have
presented evidence that cast doubt on its authenticity and
due execution. The respondents presented the testimonies
of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja who testified that
Simplicia Cavili, one of the signatories in the Deed, resided
in Mindanao from 1934 until 1947. It further observed that
the supposed thumbprint of Simplicia Cavili imprinted on
the document appeared more like an inkblot than a
thumbmark. The Court of Appeals thus directed the trial
court „to immediately appoint and constitute the necessary
number of commissioners who shall expeditiously effect the
partition and accounting of the subject properties in
accordance with
5
Rule 69 of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines.‰
Hence, this petition. Petitioners pose the following
issues for resolution by the Court:

1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals acted in

accordance with law in ruling that the notarized Deed of Partition
(Exhibit „1‰), a public document, could not be validly admitted in
evidence because its genuineness and due execution was not proved
by the petitioners?
2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals acted in
accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence in not ruling that
prescrip-

_______________

4 CA Rollo, p. 70.
5 Rollo, pp. 33-50.

261
 VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003 261
Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

tion had set in since the petitioners have been in open and adverse
occupation of the subject properties for more than forty-five (45)
years without recognizing the alleged co-ownership with the
6
respondents?

Petitioners essentially argue that the Deed of Partition is a

public document duly acknowledged before a Notary Public.
Hence, its genuineness and due execution need not be
proved. Its character as an ancient document under the
Revised Rules on Evidence is immaterial in this case since
said rule applies only to private documents. They further
contend that the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence
to the testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja
which were mere general denials.
Respondents, on the other hand, pray for the denial of
the petition on two grounds: first, it violates the rule on the
certification against forum shopping required to be
attached to petitions for review filed with this Court; and
second, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in
its assailed decision. Respondents harp on the fact that
only one of the twenty-two (22) petitioners, Thomas George
Cavili, Sr., executed and signed the certification against
forum shopping when the Rules require that said
certification must be signed by all the petitioners.
Furthermore, respondents argue that the Deed of Partition
presented by the petitioners may not be admitted in
evidence as said document has not been identified and its
due execution has not been fully established. Respondents
allege that said document is tainted with forgery because it
was shown that Simplicia Cavili was in Mindanao before,
during and after its execution.
Before going into the substantive issue raised in the
petition, we shall first resolve the procedural issue raised
by the respondents, that is, that the certification against
forum shopping attached to the petition was signed by only
one of the petitioners.
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping
must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case
and the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on
forum shopping, which were designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not
be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert
its

_______________

6 Id., p. 18.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
7
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
regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification
cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements
completely disregarded. It does not thereby interdict
substantial compliance
8
with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances.
We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr.
in behalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of
non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance
with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives and co-
owners of the properties in dispute, share a common
interest thereon. They also share a common defense in the
complaint for partition filed by the respondents. Thus,
when they filed the instant petition, they filed it as a
collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights
over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis,
therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in
behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not filed any
action or claim involving the same issues in another court
or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or claim in
another court or tribunal involving the same issues.
Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the
substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as „special
circumstance‰ for the Court to take cognizance of a petition
for review although the certification against forum
shopping was 9
executed and signed by only one of the
petitioners.
After a thorough study of the records of this case, we
find the petition to be meritorious.
 We hold that the trial court was correct in dismissing
the complaint for partition, it appearing that the lawful
heirs of Bernardo Cavili have already divided the
properties among themselves, as evidenced by the Deed of
Partition dated April 5, 1937. The terms of the Deed read:

_______________

7 See Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658 (2001); Dar vs. Alonzo-
Legasto, 339 SCRA 306 (2000).
8 MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183 (2001).
9 Uy vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 336 SCRA 419 (2000).

263

VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003 263

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

„DEED OF PARTITION

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile, Benedicta Cavile, Simplicia

Cavile, Lucio Cavile and Vicenta Navarra both (sic) of legal age and
residents in the Municipality of Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros,
Philippine Islands, after being duly sworn to in legal form,
WITNESSETH:
That Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile and Benedicta Cavile are the
only children of Bernardo Cavile with his wife Tranquilina Galon,
and that Simplicia Cavile and Fortunato Cavile and Vevencia
Cavile are the children of Bernardo Cavile outside from the conjugal
home of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon.
That Fortunato Cavile and Vevencia Cavile having already been
dead are survived by their corresponding children and represented
in this document by their oldest child, Lucio Cavile and Vicenta
Navarra, respectively.
That during the union of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon
several properties have been acquired by them and declared under
the name of Bernardo Cavile all situated in the Municipality of
Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros, which properties are described
as follows:
xxx
That by this document it is hereby agreed by the legal heirs of
Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon to divide and by these
presents it is hereby divided the above-mentioned properties in the
following manner:

1. ·That the conjugal properties of said Bernardo Cavile and

Tranquilina Galon which are already described are hereby
divided into two parts, ONE (1) part which corresponds to
the share of Bernardo Cavile is also divided into SIX (6)
equal parts, that is among Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile,
Benedicta Cavile, Simplicia Cavile, Fortunato Cavile
represented by his oldest son, Lucio Cavile, and Vevencia
Cavile represented by her oldest child Vicenta Navarra.
2. ·That the other ONE (1) part, which corresponds to the
share of Tranquilina Galon is also hereby equally divided
into THREE (3) parts, that is among Susana Cavile, Castor
Cavile and Benedicta Cavile.

SHARE OF BERNARDO CAVILE

xxx
That the share of Bernardo Cavile in parcels Tax Declaration
Nos. 7421, 7143 and 7956 are sold by the legal heirs to Castor
Cavile in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY(-)SIX
PESOS (P166.00),

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

Philippine currency, which amount has been received and divided

equally among them.
That parcel under Tax Declaration No. 5729 is hereby sold to
Ulpiano Cavile by the legal heirs of Bernardo Cavile and
Tranquilina Galon, in consideration of the sum of FIFTY PESOS
(P50.00), Philippine currency, which amount has been received and
divided equally among them.

SHARE OF TRANQUILINA GALON

xxx
That the share of Tranquilina Galon in parcels Tax Declaration
Nos. 7421, 7143 and 7956 are hereby sold by the heirs of said
Tranquilina Galon to Castor Cavile in consideration of the sum of
ONE HUNDRED SIXTY(-)SIX PESOS (P166.00), Philippine
currency(,) which sum has been received and divided equally among
them.
That the said heirs of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon
above-mentioned, hereby agree and accept as it is hereby agreed
and accepted all the items and conditions in this DEED OF
PARTITION.
IN WITNESS HEREOF we have this 5th day of April, 1937,
A.D., sign our names below in the Municipality of Tolong, Province
of Oriental Negros, Philippine Islands.

(sgd) CASTOR CAVILE (sgd) SUSANA CAVILE

(sgd) BENEDICTA CAVILE

(sgd) SIMPLIClA CAVILE (sgd) LUCIO CAVILE

(sgd) VICENTA NAVARRA

Signed in the presence of:

(sgd) F.B. Malanog (sgd) Iluminado Golez

WITH MY CONSENT:

(thumb marked)
TRANQUILINA GALON
-----------------------------------

ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA

COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS
PROVINCIA DE NEGROS ORIENTAL S.S.
MUNICIPIO DE TOLONG.

En el dia de hoy 6 de Abril de 1937, A.D., ante mi comparecieron

personalmente Castor Cavile, Lucio Cavile, Susana Cavile,
Benedicta

265

VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003 265

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile

Cavile, Simplicia Cavile, y Vicenta Cavile y Tranquilina Galon de

quienes doy fe que los conozco por ser las personas que otorgaron el
documento preinserto y ratificaron ser este un acto de sus libres
voluntades y otorgamiento. Castor Cavile me exhibe su cedula
personal No. F1138758 expedida el dia 1 de Febrero de 1937, y
Lucio Cavile me exhibe con el No. F11393521 expedida el dia 2 de
Abril de 1937, y las comparecientes no me exhiben por razon de sus
sexos.
El documento se refiere a un convenio de particion entre los
comparecientes arriba mencionados sobre ciertas porciones de
terreno radicadas todas en el municipio de Tolong, Negros Oriental
consistente en cuatro (4) paginas utiles inclusive la de ratificacion,
cada una de las cuales estan firmadas pos los otorgantes y pos los
testigos instrumentales al pie y al margen izquierdo que lleva mi
sello notarial y ratifican que el documento preinserto se otorgo bajo
sus libres y expontanea voluntad.
ANTE MI:(sgd)
ILUMINADO GOLEZ
Notario Publico
Mi comision expira el Diciembre 31, 1937

Reg. Not. No. 41

Pag. . . . . . . . .100
Lib. II
Serie de 1937‰

The document speaks for itself. The foregoing document

was acknowledged before Notary Public Iluminado Golez
and recorded in his notarial book as „Reg. Not. No. 41; Pag.
100; Lib. II, Serie de 1937.‰ Documents acknowledged
before notaries public are public documents which are
admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary
proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They enjoy
the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence
of the facts stated therein. To overcome the presumption,
there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more
than merely preponderant. 10Absent such evidence, the
presumption must be upheld.
Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, we find
that respondents in this case failed to overcome the
presumption of regu-

_______________

10 Ruiz, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 40 (2001); Liana vs. Court
of Appeals, 361 SCRA 27 (2001); Abapo vs. Court of Appeals, 327 SCRA
180 (2000); Cleofas vs. St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc., 324 SCRA 223
(2000).

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile
larity. The appellate court based its conclusion on the
testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja who
both testified that Simplicia
11
Cavili resided in Mindanao
from 1934 until 1947. Granting such fact to be true, it
does not preclude the possibility that Simplicia Cavile
could have traveled from her residence in Mindanao to
Tolong, Negros Oriental to participate in the execution of
the Deed of Partition. Filomena Pareja, a granddaughter of
Simplicia Cavili, in fact stated during cross examination
that the latter was in perfect health and was completely
mobile at that time. She also admitted that there was
available12 transportation from Mindanao to Negros
Oriental. Their testimonies, therefore, are insufficient to
overturn the presumption that the questioned Deed of
Partition has been duly executed. Furthermore, a close
examination of the questioned Deed of Partition shows that
what respondents claim to be mere inkblot is actually a
thumbmark. We note the visible grooves or lines on the
imprint that indicate that they are not mere drops of ink
but an actual thumbprint. Hence, we uphold the ruling of
the trial court finding that the properties left by Bernardo
Cavili have already been partitioned among his heirs.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it
unnecessary to discuss the issue on prescription raised by
petitioners.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The
questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE
and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete
City is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and

Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, assailed judgment set aside. That of the

trial court reinstated.

Notes.·While the requirement as to certificate of non-

forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirement
must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the
objective of preventing

_______________

11 TSN, June 14, 1990, pp. 10-12; TSN, July 13, 1990, pp. 6-8.
12 TSN, July 13, 1990, pp. 9-10.
 267

VOL. 400, APRIL 1, 2003 267

People vs. Lacson

the undesirable practice of forum-shopping. (Bernardo vs.

National Labor Relations Commission, 255 SCRA 108
[1996])
Where a party was abroad when the petition for
certiorari was filed, this is a reasonable cause to exempt
him from compliance with the requirement that he
personally execute the certification on non-forum shopping.
(Hamilton vs. Levy, 344 SCRA 821 [2000])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.