G.R. No. 204899. July 27, 2016.

HEIRS OF BABAI GUIAMBANGAN, namely, KALIPA B.

GUIAMBANGAN, SAYA GUIAMBANGAN DARUS,
NENENG P. GUIAMBANGAN, and EDGAR P.
GUIAMBANGAN,1 petitioners, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF
KALAMANSIG, SULTAN KUDARAT, represented by its
MAYOR ROLANDO P. GARCIA, members of its
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN, and its MUNICIPAL
2
TREASURER, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Misjoinder of Parties;

Nonjoinder of Parties; In Abdulrahman v. Office of the Ombudsman
for Mindanao, 704 SCRA 124 (2013), the Supreme Court (SC) held
that „neither the misjoinder nor the nonjoinder of parties is a ground
for the dismissal of an action,‰ particularly a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65; the Court of Appeals (CA) should simply order that a
party be impleaded in the case.·In Abdulrahman v. Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao, 704 SCRA 124 (2013), this Court held
that „neither the misjoinder nor the nonjoinder of parties is a
ground for the dismissal of an action,‰ particularly a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65; the CA should simply order that a party
be impleaded in the case.
Pleadings and Practice; Service of Pleadings; True it is that
Rule 46, Section 3 mandates that a copy of the petition should be
served on the other party; and that proof of such service should be
filed with the petition in court. However, the rule was substantially
complied with when service was made to petitionerÊs former counsel,
Atty. Dennis Ancheta.·The CA dismissed the Petition for lack of
appropriate service of the Petition for Certiorari on the respondents
as required by Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules, although the
record indicates that a copy thereof was served upon their counsel
of record. While this is not sanctioned by the 1997 Rules, this Court
has excused it in the past, thus: True it is that Rule 46, Section 3
mandates that a copy of the petition should be served on the other

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
1 See Rollo, pp. 13, 89, 506.
2 Id., at p. 14.

585

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 585

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

party; and that proof of such service should be filed with the
petition in court. However, the rule was substantially complied with
when service was made to petitionerÊs former counsel, Atty. Dennis
Ancheta. Without the benefit of a proper notice of petitionerÊs
substitution of counsel, respondent had no recourse but to serve the
copy of its petition to whom it knew and perceived as being
petitionerÊs counsel of record. In faithful compliance and with no
intention of delay, service was made on Atty. Ancheta.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Verification; While only one (1)
of the heirs, Saya Guiambangan Darus, verified the Court of
AppealsÊ (CAÊs) Petition for Certiorari, without proof of authority to
file the same obtained from the other heirs, this is not fatal. As heirs,
they all share a common interest; indeed, even if the other heirs were
not impleaded, the Petition may be heard, as any judgment should
inure to their benefit just the same.·While only one of the heirs,
Saya Guiambangan Darus, verified the CA Petition for Certiorari,
without proof of authority to file the same obtained from the other
heirs, this is not fatal. As heirs, they all share a common interest;
indeed, even if the other heirs were not impleaded, the Petition may
be heard, as any judgment should inure to their benefit just the
same. Or, quite simply, the CA could have ordered their inclusion,
as earlier stated above. x x x As such co-owners, each of the heirs
may properly bring an action for ejectment, forcible entry and
detainer, or any kind of action for the recovery of possession of the
subject properties. Thus, a co-owner may bring such an action, even
without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the
suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.
Civil Law; Land Titles and Deeds; Reconstitution of Titles;
Under Act No. 3110, the judicial record shall be reconstituted to the
extent that the parties agree; thereafter, the court shall intervene and
determine what proper action to take.·As far as the trial court and
parties are concerned, there is admittedly a Judgment dated March
4, 2002 rendered in favor of petitioners in Civil Case No. 989;
indeed, the trial court even cited the dispositive portion of said
Judgment in its December 16, 2010 Order, and respondents did the
same in their Memorandum before this Court; that said judgment
became final and executory; and that the trial court directed the
issuance of a writ of execution. All these facts need not be further
proved, and reconstitution of the record is irrelevant and
unnecessary on this score given

586

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

the admission of all concerned. The March 4, 2002 Judgment

and May 2, 2002 Order of the trial court directing issuance of a writ
of execution are deemed reconstituted. It must be remembered that
under Act No. 3110, the judicial record shall be reconstituted to the
extent that the parties agree; thereafter, the court shall intervene
and determine what proper action to take. It can reconstitute only
that part of the record which can stand on its own, and then
continue proceedings upon such record so reconstituted. In the
present case, it can be said that the Judgment in Civil Case No. 989
and record of subsequent actions taken are deemed reconstituted by
agreement of the parties and with the approval of the trial court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Al May Sair F. Patangan for petitioners.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari3 are

the June 14, 2011 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 04239 which dismissed the herein
petitionersÊ Petition for Certiorari,5 and its September 10,
2012 Resolution6 which denied their Motion for
Reconsideration7 in said case.

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 12-27.

4 Id., at p. 38; issued by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.,
Pamela Ann A. Maxino and Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles.
5 Id., at pp. 141-176.
6 Id., at pp. 33-37; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-
Yap and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and
Renato C. Francisco.
7 Id., at pp. 177-186.

587

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 587

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

Factual Antecedents

Datu Eishmael Summagumbra (Eishmael), heir of the

late Babai Guiambangan (Babai) and ascendant and
predecessor-in-interest of herein petitioners, Kalipa B.
Guiambangan, Saya Guiambangan Darus, Neneng P.
Guiambangan, and Edgar P. Guiambangan, instituted
before the Regional Trial Court of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat
(RTC Branch 19) Civil Case No. 989 against herein
respondents Municipality of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat,
its Mayor, Members of its Sangguniang Bayan, and its
Municipal Treasurer. The case was for recovery of
possession of real property, rentals, damages, and
attorneyÊs fees, with an additional prayer for injunctive
relief, in connection with a 422,129-square-meter parcel of
land situated in Port Lebak, Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat
which Eishmael claimed was registered in BabaiÊs name as
Original Certificate of Title No. 995-A (OCT 995-A).
On March 4, 2002, a Judgment8 was rendered in Civil
Case No. 989, which decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, judgment

is hereby rendered:
(a) ordering the defendant, Municipality of Kalamansig,
Sultan Kudarat, and those acting for and in its behalf to
vacate the portions used as market site in Lot 1534-A, Psd-
12-031263 and the portion in Lot 1534-B, Psd-12-031263
where the ice plant structure is constructed, and surrender
the possession thereof to the plaintiff, Datu Eishmael
Summagumbra, and for the latter to appropriate the
improvements built by the defendant on the said lot in
question, without paying indemnity;

_______________

8 Records, pp. 1-24; penned by Judge German M. Malcampo.

588

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

(b) ordering the defendant to pay back monthly rents to

plaintiff for the use of the portion of Lot 1534-A, Psd-12-
031263, as marketplace from January 1997, until the finality
of this judg​ment, at a reasonable amount of P5,000.00;
(c) ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff:
1 moral damages in the reasonable amount of
P30,000.00;
2 exemplary damages in the reasonable amount of
P20,000.00;
3 P20,000.00, as reasonable amount of attorneyÊs fees;
and
(d) ordering the defendant to pay the costs of suit.
For lack of merit, the counterclaim for damages interposed by
the defendant should be, as it is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.9

The above March 4, 2002 Judgment became final and

executory, and in a May 2, 2002 Order,10 the trial court
directed the issuance of a writ of execution. On June 13,
2002, Sheriff Edwin Cabug11 (Cabug) issued a Sheriff Ês
Notice12 to vacate the premises.
On March 26, 2007, Cabug issued a Sheriff Ês Partial
Return of Service,13 indicating that the writ of execution
was not enforced.

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 23-24.

10 Rollo, p. 66.
11 Also spelled as Cabog in some parts of the records.
12 Rollo, p. 67.
13 Id., at p. 73.

589

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 589

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

On August 4, 2008, fire gutted the Hall of Justice where

the files of Civil Case No. 989 was kept; however, the
record thereof was not reconstituted.
On September 17, 2010, Cabug issued another Sheriff Ês
Partial Return of Service14 and a Notice of Garnishment15
which he sent to the Manager of the Land Bank of the
Philippines Lebak, Sultan Kudarat Branch, in an apparent
attempt to execute the March 4, 2002 Judgment in Civil
Case No. 989.
Respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Issue an Order to
the Sheriff Prohibiting Him from Executing an Alleged
Judgment in the Above Entitled Case16 (Urgent Motion),
seeking to restrain Cabug from enforcing the decision in
Civil Case No. 989 on the ground that since the record
thereof was not reconstituted, then there is no judgment in
said case to be enforced; and that for failure to reconstitute
the record, petitioners have no other recourse but to file the
case anew, as Act No. 311017 requires. Petitioners filed
their Omnibus Comment18 to the motion, and to this
respondents submitted their Comments/Reply.19
_______________

14 Id., at p. 74.
15 Id., at p. 75.
16 Id., at pp. 76-80.
17 „AN ACT TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION
OF THE RECORDS OF PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND BOOKS, DOCUMENTS,
AND FILES OF THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, DESTROYED BY FIRE OR

OTHER PUBLIC CALAMITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,‰ approved on March

19, 1923, provides:
Sec. 29. In case the parties interested in a destroyed record
fail to petition for the reconstitution thereof within the six months
next following the date on which they were given notice in
accordance with Section two hereof, they shall be understood to
have waived the reconstitution and may file their respective
actions anew without being entitled to claim the benefits of
Section thirty-one hereof.
18 Rollo, pp. 81-88.
19 Id., at pp. 89-91.

590

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

On December 16, 2010, the trial court issued an Order20

granting respondentsÊ Urgent Motion, stating as follows:

As shown by the available records of the case, only machine

copies of the judgment dated March 4, 2002 (containing twenty-
three [23] pages), Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service dated July 16,
2002, Sheriff Ês Notice dated June 13, 2002, Order dated May 2,
2002, Order dated October 14, 2002, Certification issued by Arty.
Heathcliff H. Leal, dated August 12, 1999, Entry of Judgment dated
August 23, 2002 were submitted when the subject motions were
filed as the whole records of the case were burned together with the
other records of cases of the court on August 4, 2008 when the Hall
of Justice housing it and the Offices of the Provincial Prosecutor,
and the Public AttorneyÊs Office was razed to the ground by a fire.
Clearly, after that Sheriff Ês Notice dated June 13, 2002 and
Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service dated July 16, 2002 no other
proceedings nor incident was taken by the court regarding the case.
xxx
xxxx
Then suddenly another Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service dated
September 17, 2010 was issued by Edwin Galor Cabug, Sheriff IV of
the court, its content is also quoted as follows:

ÂRESPECTFULLY RETURNED to ERLINDA P. LELIM,

OIC-Clerk of Court, of this Court, the herein Writ of
Execution issued in the above entitled case that the same
have [sic] already been enforced and implemented and that
the Kalamansig Public Market was already turned over to
DARUS BASMAN who is the representative of the Plaintiff
per Special Power of Attorney.

_______________

20 Id., at pp. 93-102; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Roberto L.

Ayco.

591

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 591

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND READY REFERENCE.Ê

Aside from the said Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service dated

September 17, 2010, Edwin Galor Cabug, Sheriff IV of the Court
also issued a Notice of Garnishment dated September 17, 2010
addressed to the Manager, Land Bank of the Philippines, Lebak
Branch, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. x x x
xxxx
The above mentioned Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service and the
Notice of Garnishment all dated September 17, 2010 were issued by
x x x Cabug x x x without the court knowing it. The court bad not
issued any Order directing the issuance of any alias writ of
execution. This will only show that the writ of execution referred to
by him in his Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service was that writ of
execution directed by the court to be issued through its Order dated
May 2, 2002 and the Notice of Garnishment should have been based
upon it likewise.
This being so, can it still be legally and lawfully done considering
the period of time that had elapsed? Why was there a need for
Edwin Galor Cabug to issue another Sheriff Ês Partial Return of
Service when he had issued a similar return on July 16, 2002?
This Acting Presiding Judge having assumed as such just lately,
other than the documents forming parts of the carpeta of the case
furnished him, he does not personally know the reasons, why this
case was handled this way and in this manner.
Based however, upon said available documents, it is clear that
after the Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service was issued on July 16,
2002 no other move was ever adopted nor availed of by the Plaintiff
in order to enforce and satisfy the Judgment of the Court dated
March 4, 2002. x x x
xxxx
The next that was done thereafter was only the issuance of
another Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service

592

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

dated September 17, 2010 and the issuance of a Notice of

Garnishment, also on said day, September 17, 2010.
The Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service dated July 16, 2002, only
served a copy of the writ of execution and Sheriff Ês Notice upon
Hon. Mayor and Hon. Vice Mayor at the Session Hall of the
Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Kalamansig, Sultan
Kudarat. It had never enforced nor satisfy [sic] the subject
Judgment of the court. It would then only show that the judgment
of the court in this case was never enforced nor satisfied even
partially. There was only service of the copy of the writ of execution
and Sheriff Ês Notice.
The records of the case including the original copy of the
judgment of the court dated March 4, 2002 and that of the other
records of the cases of the court were burned on August 4, 2008 and
nothing was salvaged by the court.
There was no attempt nor effort from either of the parties to
have the records of the case reconstituted in accordance with
Section 3 of Act No. 3110 despite the Notice of Loss of Judicial
Records published in the Official Gazette on September 30, 2008
and in the newspapers both local and national. The period of time
provided by said law for the reconstitution of the records of this case
had long prescribed and may no longer be availed of. The parties in
this case then are considered to have waived their rights to avail of
said reconstitution. It is therefore mandatory on the part of the
court to declare the records of this case to have been destroyed by
fire and may no longer be reconstituted in view of the apparent
waiver of the parties.
Section 6 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure directs
the manner on how a final and executory judgment or order may be
executed. It provides, as follows:

ÂExecution by motion or by independent action.·A final

and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the

593

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 593

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of

limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The
revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five
(5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action
before it is barred by the statute of limitations. (6a)Ê

This court believes that its judgment dated March 4, 2002 was
never executed nor satisfied even partially within the period
provided by the pertinent rule above quoted.
Execution contemplates the usual situation where a judgment is
susceptible of enforcement the moment it acquires the character of
finality x x x and a judgment becomes final and executory by
operation of law, not by judicial declaration x x x. Execution is
fittingly called the fruit and end of law, and aptly called the life of
law x x x. Execution is the process of the court for carrying its
decree into effect. In an action to recover possession of lands, as in
this case, if the judgment is for the Plaintiff, the writ of execution
will be an order to deliver the possession to the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the court in this case was never carried out nor
enforced. The service of a copy of the writ of execution and Sheriff Ês
Notice to the Mayor and Vice Mayor x x x did not in any manner
satisfy the said judgment. None of the matters decreed by the court
in its judgment was ever enforced.
As shown by the Certification issued by Atty. Heathcliff H. Leal,
the Clerk of Court then, the said judgment became final and
executory on August 23, 2002.
The five (5) years period provided by Section 6 of Rule 39 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure above quoted had lapsed without the
subject judgment being enforced even partially.
WHEREFORE, the court finds, as follows:
(a) the Sheriff Ês Partial Return of Service and the Notice of
Garnishment issued by Edwin Galor Cabug,

594

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

Sheriff IV of the court were issued without apparent basis, hence,

the same are hereby declared null and void and of no effect at all;
(b) the judgment of the court dated March 4, 2002 was never
enforced nor complied, even partially and had become stale and can
no longer be enforced by a mere motion unless the same is revived
in accordance with the rules; and
(c) the records of the case were among the records of cases of
the court burned and razed by fire on August 4, 2008, nothing was
salvaged by the court, it were [sic] not reconstituted and the period
for its reconstitution had long lapsed.
SO ORDERED.21

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,22 arguing

that the court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the Urgent
Motion, invalidate CabugÊs actions, and declare stale its
March 4, 2002 Judgment for failure to reconstitute the
records and failure to execute the decision within, the 5-
year period provided for under Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure (1997 Rules); that when the March 4, 2002
Judgment became final and executory, the trial court lost
its jurisdiction to entertain respondentsÊ Urgent Motion, as
it may no longer „decide or pass upon any issue that may
thereafter be raised by the parties,‰ including the issue of
„validity or enforceability of the judgment‰; that as shown
by CabugÊs March 26, 2007 Sheriff Ês Partial Return of
Service, the failure to execute the March 4, 2002 Judgment
is attributable to respondentsÊ act of delaying satisfaction
by requesting additional time to consult their lawyer and
the members of the Sangguniang Bayan and other
municipal officials; that respondentsÊ delay did not
therefore result in the expiration of the 5-year period
allowed for the execution of the March 4, 2002 Judgment
by mere motion, but

_______________

21 Id., at pp. 94-102.

22 Id., at pp. 103-131.

595

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 595

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

instead interrupted it, because a judgment debtorÊs delay

will extend the time within which the writ of execution
may be enforced, and the time during which execution is
stayed or delayed by him should be excluded from the
computation of the 5-year period allowed for execution by
mere motion;23 that Act No. 3110 on reconstitution of court
records applies only to „pending cases,‰ and not to Civil
Case No. 989 where the March 4, 2002 Judgment is already
final and executory; that assuming arguendo that Act No.
3110 applied to Civil Case No. 989, then the assailed
December 16, 2010 Order of the trial court in said case is
null and void because it could not have acted on a case
whose record has not been properly reconstituted; that they
and their counsel did not receive any notice of loss of the
record of Civil Case No. 989, which notice is required to be
sent under Act No. 3110, thus, they may not be blamed for
failure to cause reconstitution of the record; and that the
enforcement of the writ of execution did not require the
courtÊs permission, as well as the issuance of an alias writ
of execution, since under the 1997 Rules,24 alias writs of
exe-
_______________

23 Citing Yau v. Silverio, Sr., 567 Phil. 493; 543 SCRA 520 (2008), and
Regalado, Florenz D., Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I,
pp. 417-418, Sixth Revised Edition.
24 RULE 39, ON EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF
JUDGMENTS, states:
Sec. 14. Return of writ of execution.·The writ of execution
shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the
judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment
cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt
of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the
reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the
period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The
officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on
the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in
full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall
set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed
with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.

596

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

cution were done away with; the lifetime of a writ of

execution is no longer 60 days, but the whole 5-year period
during which a judgment may be enforced by motion, and
all that the sheriff must do is to make a monthly
report/return to the court on the proceedings taken, and
such report shall be filed with the court and copies thereof
furnished the parties.
However, in a May 3, 2011 Order,25 the trial court denied
the motion for reconsideration.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed an original Petition for Certiorari26

before the CA, which was docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
04239. In a June 14, 2011 Resolution, however, the CA
resolved to dismiss the Petition, thus:
 The Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant Petition for
Certiorari for failing to strictly comply with Rule 65 and other
related provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly for:

(a) Failure to implead Public Respondent RTC Br. 19, Sultan

Kudarat in the caption of the case;

(b) Lack of appropriate service of the petition on adverse

parties Municipality of Kalamansig represented by Mayor
Rolando P. Garcia, the Sangguniang Bayan Members and the
Municipal Treasurer of the said Municipality as required by
Rule 46, Section 3;

(c) Being defective in substance as the verification and

certification of non-forum shopping is signed by Saya
Guiambangan without any proof that she has been

_______________

25 Rollo, pp. 138-140.

26 Id., at pp. 141-175.

597

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 597

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

duly authorized by the other heirs of Babai Guiambangan to file the

petition on their behalf.27

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,28 which

the CA denied in its September 10, 2012 Resolution. The
appellate court held:

Petitioners moved for reconsideration. They explain that it was

only petitioner Saya Guiambangan Summagumbra who signed the
verification and certification against forum shopping, because she is
„the only substituted heir to the late Datu Eishmael
Summagumbra.‰ They claim that this is evident in the affidavit of
Renato Consebit (Consebit), the previous counsel for the plaintiff in
the case a quo. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads:
 3. That I will confirm and affirm the fact that when I
accepted the position as one of the Prosecutors in the Office of
the National Prosecution Service, sometime in May 3, 2005, I
did not formally and officially filed [sic] my withdrawal as
counsel for the Heirs of the late Babai Guiambangan, but I
am quite sure that sometime on October 9, 2003, I filed a
Motion to Substitute Datu Eishmael Summagumbra as
representative of defendant Heirs of Babai Guiambangan
Summagumbra NAMING THEREIN SAYA GUIAMBANGAN
DARUS AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
HEIRS OF BABAI GUIAMBANGAN. x x x

Petitioners also alleged that although, they were not able to

serve copies of the petition to private respondents, they were able to
serve it to private respondentsÊ alleged counsel in the case a quo.
They insists [sic] that

_______________

27 Id., at p. 38.
28 Id., at pp. 177-186.

598

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

when a party is represented by a counsel of record, the service of

orders and notices must be made upon such counsel.
Lastly, they claimed that their failure to implead public
respondent was only a typographical error.
The motion is bereft of merit.
A petition involving two or more petitioners must be
accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping accomplished
by all petitioners, or by one who is authorized to represent them;
otherwise, the petition shall be considered as defective and may be
dismissed, under the terms of Section 3, Rule 46, in relation [sic]
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In the title of their petition, petitioners referred [sic] themselves
as the ÂHeirs of Babai Guiambangan, represented by Saya
Guiambangan Summagumbra.Ê
 The records show that it was only petitioner Saya Guiambangan
Summagumbra who signed the certification of non-forum shopping.
However, she failed to provide proof that she had authority to sign
for the other heirs of Babai Guiambangan (Guiambangan). This
makes the petition defective.
Admittedly, the infirmity is only formal. In appropriate cases, it
has been waived to give the parties a chance to argue their causes
and defenses on the merits. But to justify the relaxation of the
rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the
requirements have always been required.
However, instead of securing the consent of the other heirs of
Guiambangan, petitioner Saya Guiambangan Summagumbra
merely referred Us to the affidavit of Consebit. This did not help
their case. Firstly, petitioner Saya Guiambangan Summagumbra
failed to establish that she and Saya Guiambangan Darus, the
person named in such affidavit, is [sic] the same person. Secondly,
the affidavit cannot certainly be the source of petitioner Saya
Guiambangan SummagumbraÊs authority to represent the other
heirs of Guiambangan because it merely narrated that Consebit
filed a motion in the case

599

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 599

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

a quo. As it is, there is on record, no proof that petitioner Saya

Guiambangan Summagumbra is authorized to represent the other
petitioners in this case. This makes the case dismissible.
With the foregoing disquisition, We find it unnecessary to discuss
the other matters raised.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.29

Hence, the present Petition.

In a June 9, 2014 Resolution,30 the Court resolved to
give due course to the instant Petition.

Issues
 In essence, petitioners raise the issue of whether their
Petition for Certiorari before the CA was properly
dismissed due to mere procedural technicalities, when
these defects should have been overlooked given the
circumstances and merit of their case.

PetitionersÊ Arguments

In praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside

and that the trial courtÊs December 16, 2010 and May 3,
2011 Orders be invalidated, petitioners contend, in their
Petition and Reply,31 that the CA should not have
dismissed their Petition for Certiorari on the ground of
technicality, and should have treated their case with more
leniency and liberality; that while it was only petitioner
Saya Guiambangan Darus who executed the verification in
the CA Petition, she did the same in her personal capacity
and as representative of the

_______________

29 Id., at pp. 34-37.

30 Id., at pp. 429-430.
31 Id., at pp. 418-426.

600

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

other petitioners who are her coheirs and co-owners; that

even if the other heirs did not sign the CA Petition and are
not made party to the CA case as a result, still any
judgment obtained will be to their benefit as well,
considering that they share a common interest in the
action, as coheirs to Babai and Eishmael, and as co-owners
of the subject property; that even though the signatory to
the CA Petition was designated only as „Saya
Guiambangan,‰ it refers to petitioner herein, Saya
Guiambangan Darus, who actually signed the said petition,
thus, „Saya Guiambangan‰ and „Saya Guiambangan
Darus‰ refer to one and the same individual; that in any
case, they attached a Special Power of Attorney32 to the
instant Petition in order to comply with the procedural
requirement; and that if the CA looked beyond the
procedural aspect of the case, it would have realized the
merit in their cause.

RespondentsÊ Arguments

Respondents, on the other hand, essentially argue in

their Comment33 that the CA committed no error; that a
party availing of the remedy of certiorari must strictly
observe the procedural requirements under the 1997 Rules,
failing which his petition should be dismissed or rejected;
and that since petitionersÊ CA Petition contained errors in
violation of the 1997 Rules and circulars of the Court
requiring proper verification, impleading of parties, and
service of pleadings, then the appellate court was correct in
exercising its discretion to dismiss the same. Thus, they
pray for denial.
In their Memorandum,34 respondents add that
petitionersÊ claim of ownership is based on OCT 995-A,
which on its face is patently fake as found by the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) itself; that OCT 995-A is
based on a Land Registration Commission record which
actually pertains to a piece of prop-

_______________

32 Id., at pp. 39-40.

33 Id., at pp. 393-406.
34 Id., at pp. 452-467.

601

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 601

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

erty located in Manila; that petitioners were able to secure

the title through defective reconstitution proceedings, in
that the trial court hastily allowed reconstitution even
without awaiting the LRAÊs report on the title; and that as
a result, the government filed Civil Case No. 1024 against
petitioners for the annulment/cancellation of petitionersÊ
title and reversion of the subject property, which case is
pending before the same court (Branch 19) handling Civil
Case No. 989.35

Our Ruling

The Court grants the Petition.

The CA dismissed petitionersÊ Certiorari Petition on
three grounds: first, for failure to implead the trial court as
required by Section 5, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules,36 which
states as follows:

Sec. 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.·When the

petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the
petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with
such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons
interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be
the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in
his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or
respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in
such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the
private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the
petition is pending, the public respondents

_______________

35 Id., at pp. 490-496; Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 1024.

36 On Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus.

602

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat
shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or
any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by
either party, the public respondents shall be included therein as
nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by
the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings
therein.

This, however, is not fatal. In Abdulrahman v. Office of the

Ombudsman for Mindanao,37 this Court held that „neither
the misjoinder nor the nonjoinder of parties is a ground for
the dismissal of an action,‰38 particularly a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65; the CA should simply order that
a party be impleaded in the case. The Court made the
following pronouncement in said case:

The acceptance of a petition for certiorari, and necessarily the

grant of due course thereto, is addressed to the sound discretion of
the court. Thus, the court may reject and dismiss a petition for
certiorari (1) when there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion
by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when mere
are procedural errors, such as violations of the Rules of Court or
Supreme Court circulars.
In this case, the CA dismissed petitionerÊs special civil action for
certiorari because of procedural errors, namely: (1) failure to
implead private respondent; (2) failure to attach copies of the
pleadings and documents relevant to the petition; (3) failure to file a
motion for re-

_______________

37 G.R. No. 175977, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 124.

38 Citing Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules, on Parties to Civil
Actions, which state:
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties.·Neither misjoinder
nor nonjoinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties
may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or
on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately.

603
 VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 603
Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

consideration of the Order of Implementation; and consequently, (4)

failure to allege material dates in the petition.
Petitioner argues that the rules of procedure should be liberally
construed when substantial issues need to be resolved.
Indeed, the rules of procedure need not always be applied in a
strict, technical sense, since they were adopted to help secure and
not override substantial justice. „In clearly meritorious cases, the
higher demands of substantial justice must transcend rigid
observance of procedural rules.‰
Thus, we have given due course to a petition because it was
meritorious, even though we recognized that the CA was correct in
dismissing the petition for certiorari in the light of the failure of
petitioner to submit material documents. We have affirmed the CA
when it granted a petition for certiorari despite the litigantÊs failure
to file a motion for reconsideration beforehand. We have also had
occasion to excuse the failure to comply with the rule on the
statement of material dates in the petition, since the dates were
evident from the records.39

Next, the CA dismissed the Petition for lack of

appropriate service of the Petition for Certiorari on the
respondents as required by Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997
Rules,40 although

_______________

39 Abdulrahman v. Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, supra

note 37.
40 On Original Cases, which states:
Sec. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance
with requirements.·The petition shall contain the full names and
actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise
statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the
case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further
indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment
or final order or resolution subject thereof was received,
 604

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

the record indicates that a copy thereof was served upon

their counsel of record. While this is not sanctioned by the
1997 Rules, this Court has excused it in the past, thus:

_______________

when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed

and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with
proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy
intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and
shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or
certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling
subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are
referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent
thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk
of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper
officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his
duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of
copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain
copies of all documents attached to the original.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a
sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any
other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he
must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter
learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other
tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other
lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00
for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition. (n)
 605

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 605

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

True it is that Rule 46, Section 3 mandates that a copy of the

petition should be served on the other party; and that proof of such
service should be filed with the petition in court. However, the rule
was substantially complied with when service was made to
petitionerÊs former counsel, Atty. Dennis Ancheta.
Without the benefit of a proper notice of petitionerÊs substitution
of counsel, respondent had no recourse but to serve the copy of its
petition to whom it knew and perceived as being petitionerÊs counsel
of record. In faithful compliance and with no intention of delay,
service was made on Atty. Ancheta.41

Finally, while only one of the heirs, Saya Guiambangan

Darus, verified the CA Petition for Certiorari, without proof
of authority to file the same obtained from the other heirs,
this is not fatal. As heirs, they all share a common interest;
indeed, even if the other heirs were not impleaded, the
Petition may be heard, as any judgment should inure to
their benefit just the same. Or, quite simply, the CA could
have ordered their inclusion, as earlier stated above.

x x x As such co-owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an

action for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of
action for the recovery of possession of the subject properties. Thus,
a co-owner may bring such an action, even without joining all the
other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be
instituted for the benefit of all.42

This ponente reiterated this principle in Heirs of Lazaro

Gallardo v. Soliman,43 and later, in Jacinto v. Gumaru,
Jr.44

_______________

41 Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, 595 Phil. 732,

747; 575 SCRA 124, 139-140 (2008).
 42 Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada, 536 Phil. 705, 722; 505 SCRA 828,
844 (2006).
43 708 Phil. 428; 695 SCRA 453 (2013).
44 G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 343.

606

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

Indeed, the CA should not have forgotten the guidelines

laid down by the Court regarding verifications and
certifications against forum shopping:

For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates
in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already
reflected above respecting noncompliance with the
requirements on, or submission of defective, verification
and certification against forum shopping:
1) A distinction must be made between noncompliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective verification, and
noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, noncompliance there​with 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.
3) 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.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, noncom​pliance
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 Âsubstantial
complianceÊ or presence of Âspecial circumstances or compelling
reasons.Ê
 5) 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

607

VOL. 798, JULY 27, 2016 607

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

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.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be
executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for
reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to
sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign on his behalf.45 (Emphasis supplied)

Regarding respondentsÊ argument that petitionersÊ title

is spurious and for this reason Civil Case No. 1024 for
annulment of title and reversion of the subject property
was instituted, this cannot justify the dismissal of
petitionersÊ Certiorari Petition before the CA; it is
irrelevant to these proceedings. As far as the trial court
and parties are concerned, there is admittedly a Judgment
dated March 4, 2002 rendered in favor of petitioners in
Civil Case No. 989; indeed, the trial court even cited the
dispositive portion of said Judgment in its December 16,
2010 Order, and respondents did the same in their
Memorandum before this Court;46 that said judgment
became final and executory; and that the trial court
directed the issuance of a writ of execution. All these facts
need not be further proved, and reconstitution of the record
is irrelevant and unnecessary on this score given the
admission of all concerned. The March 4, 2002 Judgment
and May 2, 2002 Order of the trial court directing issuance
of a writ of execution are deemed reconstituted. It must be
remembered that under Act No. 3110, the judicial record
shall be reconstituted to the extent that the parties agree;
thereafter, the court shall intervene and determine what
proper action to take. It can reconstitute only that part of
the record which can stand on

_______________

45 Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 261-262; 573 SCRA 583, 596-598
(2008); cited in Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., id., at pp. 355-357.
46 Rollo, pp. 98, 453-454.

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat

its own, and then continue proceedings upon such record so

reconstituted.47 In the present case, it can be said that the
Judgment in Civil Case No. 989 and record of subsequent
actions taken are deemed reconstituted by agreement of
the parties and with the approval of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The June
14, 2011 and September 10, 2012 Resolutions in C.A.-G.R.
S.P. No. 04239 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted, resolutions reversed and set aside.

Notes.·Neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is

a ground for the dismissal of an action; The proper remedy
is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the
action. (Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Villamater, 614
SCRA 182 [2010])
A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the
ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title but
merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is
 proper. (Republic vs. Pasicolan, 755 SCRA 495 [2015])

··o0o··

_______________

47 Act No. 3110, Section 5 states:

In case the counsels or parties are unable to come to an
agreement, the Court shall determine what may be proper in the
interest of equity and justice, and may also consider the
proceeding in question as non​existent and reconstitute only that
part of the record which can stand without such proceeding, and
continue proceedings upon the record so reconstituted.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.