HEIRS OF JUAN M. DINGLASAN v. AYALA CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 204378

August 5, 2019
THIRD DIVISION, Peralta, J.

FACTS:

Petitioners Heirs of Juan Dinglasan filed an Application for Registration of Title over a
parcel of land (Lot 11808, Cad-264). Respondents Ayala Corporation (Ayala), Omni port Economic
Center (Omniport) and, Pilipinas Shell Corporation (Shell) filed their opposition. The first two
oppositors claimed ownership thereon presenting their respective Certificates of Title, whereas
the third opposed argued that it has lease contract with first oppositor. The RTC dismissed
petitioners' application for registration.

Two separate complaints were filed by petitioners, through their representative, Sonia
Dinglasan (Sonia) against Omniport, Ayala and Shell. Petitioners' basic contention in both
Complaints is that the TCTs in the names of Omni port and Ayala are null and void because the
subject lots were never brought under registration and that OCT 18989, issued in the name of one
Severina Luna Orosa (Orosa), from which Omniport's and Ayala's TCTs were ultimately derived,
is fake or spurious.

The trial court found that Orosa and all other persons who expressed opposition to
petitioners' Application for Registration of Title are indispensable parties to the case but were not
impleaded as defendants. Thus, a valid judgment cannot be rendered where there is want of
indispensable parties. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision. Despite such ruling, however, the CA,
like the RTC, continued to rule on the merits of the case and concluded that petitioners "have not
established any right over the subject properties." Their Motion for Reconsideration with CA was
also denied. The case is now brought to the Supreme Court (SC) on Certiorari. At this juncture,
Ayala Corporation, et al., argued among others that the (1) the case has now attained finality as
the Heirs’s MR was not seasonably filed, and (2) that the SC may no longer disturb the factual
findings of the CA, hence the case is unmeritorious.

ISSUES:

1. May the CA’s decision (which has attained finality due to a tardy Motion for Reconsideration),
favoring Ayala Corp. et al., be still reviewed?

2. Are Ayala Corp., et al., correct in arguing that the Supreme Court cannot entertain factual issues
in this case, being a petition for review on certiorari?

3. Is the petition fatally defective for failure of the other petitioners to sign and execute the
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping?

4. Is Severina Luna Orosa an indispensable party? If yes, is the non-joinder of indispensable

parties a ground for the dismissal of the action?
RULING:

1. Yes. CA’s judgment is already immutable but the surrounding circumstances of the case
warrant relaxation of the rules.

While it is true that the assailed CA decision has attained finality because of a belatedly
filed MR, there are compelling reasons in this case that call for suspension of the doctrine of
immutability of final judgments.

Foremost, involved in this case is substantial amount of properties. Likewise, the case is
highly meritorious. Lastly, Ayala Corp., et al failed to prove that this review is frivolous and
dilatory. Thus, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, the technical rules of procedure are hereby
suspended so as not to thwart or frustrate justice.

Indeed, decisions or judgments which are final and executory cannot be disturbed, except
to serve substantial justice on highly exceptional instances, namely:
a. Cases involving life, liberty, honor, or property;
b. Existence of special or compelling circumstances;
c. Highly meritorious cases;
d. Where the party invoking liberal suspension of rules was not entirely at fault
or negligence;
e. When the review sought was not shown to be utterly frivolous or dilatory; and
f. When the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

2. No; By way of exception, errors in the appreciation of facts of RTC and CA can be
reviewed herein.

Ayala Corp., et al., correctly stated the general rule that trial court and/or CA’s findings
cannot be disturbed in Rule 45 petitions like this. However, there are jurisprudentially-
recognized-exceptions, such as:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3)
Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court
of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth
in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.

The present case falls under the second, eighth, and tenth exceptions.
 3. No.

As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily

render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on
the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. Verification is deemed
substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the
petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

As to certification against forum shopping, noncompliance therewith or a defect therein,

unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof,
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of
"special circumstances or compelling reasons." The certification against forum shopping must
be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will
be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as
when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complies with the Rule.

All the petitioners are immediate relatives and heirs of Juan who share a common interest
in the land sought to be reconveyed, as well as common claims and defenses, and a common
cause of action raising the same arguments in support thereof. There was sufficient basis,
therefore, for Sonia to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners when she certified that they
had not filed any action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Thus, the
Verification and Certification that Sonia executed constitutes substantial compliance under the
Rules of Court.

4. Yes. But the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of the action.

An indispensable party is one who stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of the
petition. It is settled that the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and courts cannot
proceed without their presence. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the
court with jurisdiction. Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or
proceeding, the judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable
party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not
only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present.

In the present case, the Court agrees with both the RTC and the CA that Severina Luna
Orosa is an indispensable party because the main issue in the instant case is whether or not the
issuance of OCT 18989, which was alleged to be registered under Orosa's name, was fraudulently
obtained. Orosa's rights are directly affected by the present controversy and that she stands to be
injured by the outcome of the Complaints filed by petitioners.
However, the compliant should not be dismissed for non-joinder of indispensable parties.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by
order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or
at such times as are just.