Cavile vs.
Heirs of Cavile ▪ Some of them were residing elsewhere at the time
Doctrine
● Rule that all must sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is
substantially complied with when one among relatives and
co-owners of the property, sharing a common interest thereon, signs.
This is because they share a common interest thereon, and because
they have a common defense in the complaint as well.
Facts
● Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages.
o 1​st​ – Ines Dumat-ol with whom he had one child – Simplicia
o 2​nd​ – Orfia Colhalho – two kids Fortunato and Vevencia
o 3​rd – Tranquilina Galon – three kids Castor, Susana, and
Benedicta
● Bernardo acquired six parcels of land during his lifetimes, all of which
are the subjects of this case. He died.
● The descendants from the FIRST and SECOND marriages
(respondents) filed a complaint for partition against the descendants
from the THIRD marriage (petitioners)
o FIRST and SECOND alleged that they were the co-owners
of the properties in question, as part of their inheritance from
Bernardo Cavili.
o They said that when Bernardo died, Castor (child from
THIRD) took over the administration of the properties of the
deceased as an administrator of the estate. However, Castor
started possessing the properties as an owner, using its
fruits and refusing the other heirs’ demand for partition.
▪ As of the filing of the case, the THIRD marriage
descendants had already been possessing it for 45
years.
● Trial Court ruled in favor of the FIRST and SECOND. It ordered the
partition of the six parces of land. However, a new trial was held
upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili (case doesn’t say
sino sila​…​) who alleged that they weren’t served summons.
● Trial Court dismissed the complaint for partition
o This was based on evidence adduced by Primitivo and
Quirino that a Deed of Partition was already executed before
the case, where descendants from all marriages
participated.
● Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision
o Due execution and genuineness of the Deed of Partition was
never proven. FIRST and SECOND were able to cast doubt
as to its authenticity.
▪ Thumbprints of some were merely inkblots
the deed was partitioned.
● Among the grounds invoked by the FIRST and SECOND heirs
against the appeal to the Supreme Court made by the THIRD is that
it violates the rule on the certification against forum shopping
required to be attached to petitions for review filed with this Court.
o 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
Supreme Court
● 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. Note however, that the purpose of te certificate is to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Hence it
should not be interpreted with sucb absolute literalness as to subvert
its own ultimate and legitimate objective.
o Thus the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of
with respect to the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
● 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​.
Other discussion
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.
The document speaks for itself. The foregoing document was acknowledged
before Notary Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book.
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.

The presumption of regularity was not overcome in this case

● Re: inkblot – it’s a signature. Note the visible grooves or lines on the
imprint that indicate that they are not mere drops of ink but an actual
thumbprint.
● Re: residing elsewhere – 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