Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

HEIRS OF FRANCISCO RETUYA ET AL V. COURT OF APPEALS G.R.

163039 FACTS: Severo Retuya (Severo) and Maxima Mayol Retuya (Maxima) were husband and wife without any children. Severo left several parcels of land registered under his name which are located in Mandaue City. Severo died intestate, survived by his wife Maxima and by Severo's full blood brothers and sisters, namely, Nicolas, Francisco, Quintin, Eulogio, Ruperto, Epifania, Georgia and the Heirs of Juan Retuya (Severos brother who had died earlier), as well as Severo's halfblood siblings, namely, Romeo, Leona, Rafaela, Fidela, Severina and Martina. Sometime in 1971, Maxima also died intestate, survived by her siblings, namely, Fructuoso, Daniel, Benjamin, Lorenzo, Concepcion and Teofila. In 1996, Severo and Maxima's siblings and their nephews and nieces, herein petitioners, filed with the RTC of Mandaue City, an action for judicial partition of the real properties registered under the names of Severo and Maxima, and the accounting of the rentals derived there from against Severo's two other brothers, respondents Nicolas and his son Procopio Villanueva, and Eulogio, who was represented by the latter's heirs. RTC declared the heirs of EULOGIO Retuya as owners of 1/16 share of Severo to the of the subject properties representing the shares of Severo, which he inherited from his father and later on sold to Eulogio. Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for annulment of Judgment of the RTC, claiming that the question order was a patent nullity for want of jurisdiction and lack of due process. CA dismissed the petition. o o Three of the petitioners did not sign the certificate of nonforum shopping. Payment of docket fee was short of P480.00.

certification when if fact he passed away before the petition was filed.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in dismissing the petition(s).

HELD/RATIO: NO. The decisions of the CA are AFFIRMED. Petitioners actuation showed their lack of forthrightness to the CA which the latter correctly found to be a dishonest act committed against it. o o o There was a signature above the typewritten name of Quintin. Written below the signature of Quintin was CTC No. 06570132, issued on January 8, 2003 in Mandaue City. It would appear that Quintin, who was already dead at the time the petition was filed, had signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping and he was even in possession of a CTC.

CA correctly denied the motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the Atty. Dela Cerna, representative of the party had no right to represent the petitioners. o Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court on the requirements of a valid substitution of counsel: The filing of a written application for substitution; The clients written consent; The consent of the substituted lawyer if such consent can be obtained; and, in case such written consent cannot be procured, a proof of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the Rules.

Parties filed for a motion for reconsideration but was dismissed by the CA on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the certification of non-forum shopping due to their alleged dishonesty by claiming that on of the principal parties signed the said

In this case, petitioners failed to comply with the above requirements.

Вам также может понравиться