Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179874 2015-06-22	ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA PERALTA, J.
In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo[38], it was held that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it. Such verification was deemed sufficient assurance that matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. Likewise, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases where those who did not sign were relatives of the lone signatory[39] of the certification against forum shopping when they all share a common interest in a disputed property and invoke a common cause of action or defense. As held in Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada[40]
	GR No. 163610 2010-09-27	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TORING v. HEIRS OF TEODOSIA BOQUILAGA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
But first, we resolve the issue of the propriety of the suit filed by the petitioners. The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action was filed irrespective of whether he is entitled to all or only some of such relief.[20] As gleaned from the averments of the petition filed before the trial court, though captioned as for delivery or production of documents and annulment of document, petitioners' action was really for quieting of title and cancellation of reconstituted titles.
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada,[20] the Court held:The substantial compliance rule has been applied by this Court in a number of cases: Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, where the Court sustained the validity of the certification signed by only one of petitioners because he is a relative of the other petitioners and co-owner of the properties in dispute; Heirs of Agapito T. Olarte v. Office of the President of the Philippines, where the Court allowed a certification signed by only two petitioners because the case involved a family home in which all the petitioners shared a common interest; Gudoy v. Guadalquiver, where the Court considered as valid the certification signed by only four of the nine petitioners because all petitioners filed as co-owners pro indiviso a complaint against respondents for quieting of title and damages, as such, they all have joint interest in the undivided whole; and DAR v. Alonzo-Legasto, where the Court sustained the certification signed by only one of the spouses as they were sued jointly involving a property in which they had a common interest.[21] (Italics in the original, underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 164340 2008-11-28	OTILIA STA. ANA v. SPS. LEON G. CARPO AND AURORA CARPO NACHURA, J.
In this case, petitioner was one day late in filing her Motion for Extension. To deny the Petition on this ground alone is too harsh a penalty for a day's delay, taking into consideration the time, resources and effort spent by petitioner and even by the respondents, in order to pursue this case all the way to this Court. Thus, we dispense with the apparent procedural defect and resolve this case on the merits. The ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits -- with all parties given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses -- rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.[33]
	GR No. 164479 2008-02-13	ROMBE EXIMTRADE v. ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK VELASCO JR., J.
On the matter of verification, the purpose of the verification requirement is to assure that the allegations in a petition were made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition signed the verification attached to it, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[4] In this case, we find that the position, knowledge, and experience of Ferrer as Manager and Head of the Acquired Assets Unit of Asiatrust, and his good faith, are sufficient compliance with the verification and certification requirements. This is in line with our ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada,[5] where we said that it is deemed substantial compliance when one with sufficient knowledge swears to the truth of the allegations in the complaint. However, to forestall any challenge to the authority of the signatory to the verification, the better procedure is to attach a copy of the board resolution of the corporation empowering its official to sign the petition on its behalf.
	GR No. 148846 2007-09-25	CECILIA AMODIA VDA. DE MELENCION v. CA NACHURA, J.
In this regard, the case of Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada[37] is instructive, viz.:The purpose of verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition (or complaint) have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement.