View full case

MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE v. HEIRS OF CLARITA CAVILE

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by respondents against petitioners for the partition of properties left by their common ascendant, Bernardo Cavili. The respondents claimed co-ownership of the properties and demanded partition. The petitioners failed to file an answer within the reglementary period and were declared in default, allowing the respondents to present evidence ex parte. The trial court initially ordered partition but a new trial was held based on a motion by Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili, who were not properly served with summons. The petitioners presented a Deed of Partition executed in 1937, which the trial court considered and dismissed the complaint. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Deed of Partition cannot be considered an ancient document, and the appellate court ruled in their favor, reversing the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals directed the trial court to appoint commissioners for the partition and accounting of the properties. The petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court, asserting that the Deed of Partition does not require proof of genuineness and due execution. The respondents argue for the denial of the petition based on non-compliance with certification against forum shopping and the admissibility of the Deed of Partition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the certification against forum shopping attached to the petition was sufficient despite being signed by only one petitioner.

  2. Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition.

  3. Whether the Deed of Partition is valid and enforceable.

  4. Whether the respondents provided sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity.

RULING:

  1. The signing of the certification against forum shopping by only one petitioner constitutes substantial compliance with the rules. The petitioners in this case share a common interest and defense in the complaint for partition. Therefore, Thomas George Cavile, Sr. can speak for and on behalf of his co-petitioners. Moreover, the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed a "special circumstance" for the court to take cognizance of the petition even with only one petitioner signing the certification.

  2. The trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition. The properties have already been divided among the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavile as evidenced by the Deed of Partition. The Deed clearly states the manner in which the properties were divided, and there is no basis for further partition.

  3. The Deed of Partition is valid and enforceable. It is a public document acknowledged before a notary public, which enjoys the presumption of regularity. Without clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence to rebut the presumption, the Deed of Partition must be upheld.

  4. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity. Testimonies stating that one of the heirs resided in Mindanao during the execution of the Deed of Partition is insufficient to discredit the document. It is possible for the heir to have traveled to participate in the execution, as there was transportation available. Additionally, the alleged inkblot presented by the respondents was found to be an actual thumbprint, further supporting the authenticity of the document.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The rule on forum shopping should not be interpreted with absolute literalness, but with substantial compliance as long as the certification satisfies the mandatory requirements and the petitioners share a common interest and defense.

  • The merits of the substantive aspects of a case may be considered a "special circumstance" for the court to take cognizance of a petition, even if the certification against forum shopping is signed by only one petitioner.

  • The division of properties among lawful heirs, as evidenced by a valid Deed of Partition, may be a sufficient basis for dismissing a complaint for partition.

  • Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents, admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution.

  • Public documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, and it is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

  • To overcome the presumption of regularity, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.