You are on page 1of 2

HEIRS OF RETUYA v CA FACTS: Severo Retuya and Maxima Mayol Retuya were husband and wife without any

children. Severo left five parcels of land registered under his name which are all located in Mandaue City. Some of these parcels of land were covered by a lease contract, the rentals of which were received by respondents Nicolas Retuya and Procopio illanueva, while !ot No. "#$!, covered by %C% No. &'()#, was previously sold by the *eirs of Severo and Maxima Retuya to third persons. +n ,une '", '-(', Severo died intestate, survived by his wife Maxima and by Severo.s full blood brothers and sisters, namely, Nicolas, /rancisco, 0uintin, 1ulogio, Ruperto, 1pifania, 2eorgia and the *eirs of ,uan Retuya 3Severo.s brother who had died earlier4, as well as Severo.s half$blood siblings, namely, Romeo, !eona, Rafaela, /idela, Severina and Martina. Sometime in '-#', Maxima also died intestate, survived by her siblings, namely, /ructuoso, 5aniel, 6en7amin, !oren8o, Concepcion and %eofila. 9n '--(, Severo and Maxima.s siblings and their nephews and nieces, herein petitioners, filed with the Regional %rial Court 3R%C4 of Mandaue City, an action for 7udicial partition of the above$mentioned real properties registered under the names of Severo and Maxima, and the accounting of the rentals derived therefrom against Severo.s two other brothers, respondents Nicolas and his son Procopio illanueva, and 1ulogio, who was represented by the latter.s heirs. Respondents *eirs of 1ulogio filed their :nswer claiming that Severo had already sold the sub7ect lands to their father 1ulogio by virtue of a notari8ed 5eed of :bsolute Sale of 9nterests and Pro 9ndiviso Shares to !ands dated March &-, '-(', thus, petitioners have no right to as; for the partition of the sub7ect properties, as respondents heirs are the owners of the same. +n the other hand, respondents Nicolas and his son Procopio filed their :nswer admitting to have collected rentals on some of the sub7ect properties and that such rentals were still intact and ready for partition< and that they were willing to partition the properties but were opposed by their co$respondents. R%C rendered a 5ecision declaring the heirs of 1ulogio Retuya as owners of the '='( share of Severo Retuya to a > of the sub7ect properties representing the shares of the late Severo Retuya which he inherited from his deceased father, 1steban Retuya and which he sold to 1ulogio, the remaining properties which were not sold to 1ulogio should be partitioned, except for the lot which serves as a right of way. Respondents *eirs of 1ulogio filed a Motion for Correction of Mathematical Computation of their share in !ot '&'$'$'? alleging that their correct share should be &@@ sA. meters, instead of "& sA. meters. R%C granted the motion and the decision became final and executory. Respondents *eirs of 1ulogio filed a Motion for the 9ssuance of a Brit of 1xecution, which the R%C granted in its +rder dated March '@, &??&. Petitioners, through :tty. Norberto !una, ,r., as collaborating counsel, filed a Motion to *old in :beyance the 9mplementation of the Brit of 1xecution with Motion for Clarification and Precautionary Reservation to /ile Pertinent Pleadings and !egal Remedies. Respondents *eirs of 1ulogio filed their +pposition thereto. R%C denied the motion, and the Brit of 1xecution was issued. Respondents *eirs of 1ulogio filed a Motion to :uthori8e the 6ranch Cler; of Court to 1nforce the :mended 5ecision. Petitioners were ordered by the R%C to file their Comment thereto. Petitioners filed their Comment with Prayer for the 9ssuance of a Clarificatory +rder as to how the R%C arrived at the new computation of &@@ sA. meters from the original award of "& sA. meters for !ot No. '&'$'$'?$&(?. %he R%C, after finding that what was at issue was 7ust the matter of mathematical computation of the area ad7udicated to the parties, and in the interest of substantial 7ustice, set a conference to settle once and for all the exact computation of the parties. respective shares.

+n /ebruary &", &??C, petitioners filed with the C: a Petition for :nnulment of ,udgment of the R%C +rder dated +ctober &C, &??', amending the decision dated :ugust -, &??', claiming that the Auestioned +rder was a patent nullity for want of 7urisdiction and utter lac; of due process. 9n a Resolution, the C: outrightly dismissed the Petition for :nnulment of ,udgment. 9t found that three of the petitioners, namely, Promilino Semblante, Salome Retuya and /ernando Retuya, did not sign the certification of non$forum shopping< and that the payment of the doc;et fee was short of P")?.??. Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which the C: granted. +n ,uly &&, &??C, respondents *eirs of 1ulogio filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the ,uly C, &??C Resolution, on the ground that it was made to appear in the Petition for :nnulment of ,udgment that 0uintin Retuya, one of the petitioners, had signed the certification against forum shopping on March '), &??C, when he had already died on ,uly &-, '--(< that the signature of co$petitioner Romeo Retuya in the certification against forum shopping was not his, as compared to his signature in the letter which respondents attached to the motion for reconsideration< and that Romeo suffered a stro;e in ,anuary &??C and was bedridden until he died on :pril &), &??C. 9n a Resolution dated November &), &??C, the C: granted respondents. Motion for Reconsideration and dismissed the petition, as no Comment was filed by petitioners. %he C: said that Section @, Rule # of the Rules of Court provides that the principal party shall sign the certification against forum shopping, as the attestation reAuires personal ;nowledge by the party who executed the same, otherwise, it would cause the dismissal of the petition. Considering that 0uintin, one of the parties to the petition, died on ,uly &-, '--(, it could have been impossible for him to sign the Petition dated March '), &??C. : Motion for Reconsideration was filed by :tty. Renante dela Cerna as counsel for petitioners, contending that there was substantial compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping when ma7ority of the principal parties were able to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. :ttached in the motion for reconsideration was the affidavit of the *eirs of 0uintin ac;nowledging said mista;e and submitted a verification and certification duly signed by the heirs. +n March C, &??", the C: issued a Resolution denying petitioners. motion for reconsideration. ISSUE: B+N %*1 R1SP+N51N% C+DR% +/ :PP1:!S S1R9+DS!E 1RR15 9N 59SM9SS9N2 %*1 P1%9%9+N1RS. P1%9%9+N 6E RD!9N2 :2:9NS% %*1 P1%9%9+N1RS. SD6S%:N%9:! C+MP!9:NC1 %+ %*1 C1R%9/9C:%9+N :2:9NS% N+N$/+RDM S*+PP9N2 /+R %*1 :!!1215 59S*+N1S%E C+MM9%%15 6E %*1 P:R%91S :N5=+R %*19R C+DNS1! B*1N %*1E M:51 9% :PP1:R %*:% +N1 +/ %*1 !9S%15 P:R%91S S92N15 %*1 C1R%9/9C:%9+N, B*1N 9N /:C% *1 5915 61/+R1 %*1 P1%9%9+N B:S /9!15. HELD: No. %he C: did not err when it dismissed the petition. Notably, there was a signature above the typewritten name of 0uintin without any showing that it was signed by another person for or in behalf of 0uintin. 9n the absence of such Aualification, it appeared before the C: that 0uintin was the one who signed the same, especially since the C: did not ;now of the fact of 0uintin.s death. %here was nothing in the petition for annulment of 7udgment which alleged such information. 9n fact, we do not find any sufficient explanation given by petitioners as to why there was a signature of 0uintin appearing in the verification and certification against forum shopping. Be also find that the C: correctly denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that :tty. Renante dela Cerna, the lawyer who filed the motion for reconsideration, had no right to represent petitioners. Dnder Section &(, Rule 'C) of the Rules of Court and established 7urisprudence, a valid substitution of counsel has the following reAuirementsF 3'4 the filing of a written application for substitution< 3&4 the client.s written consent< 3C4 the consent of the substituted lawyer if such consent can be obtained< and, in case such written consent cannot be procured, 3"4 a proof of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to be substituted in the manner reAuired by the Rules. 9n this case, petitioners failed to comply with the above reAuirements. :tty. 5ela Cerna, as counsel for petitioners, filed the motion for

reconsideration on 5ecember &&, &??C. *owever, he is not the counsel on record of petitioners, but :tty. !una. Petitioners did not file a motion for substitution of counsel on record before the filing of the motion for reconsideration. 9t is worthy to mention that :tty. 5ela Cerna did not even file a notice of appearance. 9f it has been held that courts may not presume that the counsel of record has been substituted by a second counsel merely from the filing of a formal appearance by the latter, then with more reason that :tty. 5ela Cerna could not be considered to have substituted :tty. !una as there was no notice of his entry of appearance at all. %he fact that :tty. !una was still the counsel on record at the time :tty. 5ela Cerna filed his motion for reconsideration was established in :tty. !una.s 1xplanation dated March '-, &??" to the C:.s Show Cause +rder to him wherein he prayed therein that an +rder be issued relieving him of his legal obligations to petitioners. Moreover, on :pril C?, &??", petitioners through their counsel on record, :tty. !una, filed a motion for substitution of counsels wherein they alleged that they engaged the services of :tty. ,orge 1sparagosa as their new counsel and relieved :tty. !una of all his legal obligations to them. Notably, there was no mention at all of :tty. 5ela Cerna. 9ndeed, there was no showing of the authority of :tty. 5ela Cerna to file the motion for reconsideration for petitioners. %hus, the C: correctly found that :tty. 5ela Cerna has no personality to represent petitioners and file the motion for reconsideration.

You might also like