Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26 &
the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001

FACTS:

Originally four lots were owned Rafael Galvez. He subsequently sold lot 1 and 4
in favor of Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, Regina Bustos, and Erlinda Balatbat in a
deed of sale. Mamaril later sold lot 1 to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. Later,
unknown to Lepanto, the RTC declared the OCT registered in the name of Galvez as
null and void and ordered the cancellation thereof. On October 28, 1963, Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company sold to herein petitioner Lots No. 1 and 4. Meanwhile
the decision of the CA became final and executory and a writ was issued, however said
writ remained unsatisfied for 24 years.
Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint for revival of judgment and
cancellation of titles before the Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region
against the successors of Galvez and herein petitioner and its motion for
reconsideration was likewise turned down. The CA affirmed the same, hence this
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the filing of the petition was authorized by the BOD of
petitioner.

RULING:

YES.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that
Lorenzo Balbin, the resident manager for petitioner, who was the signatory in the
verification and certification on non-forum shopping, failed to show proof that he was
authorized by petitioner's board of directors to file such a petition.
It was clear from the record that when the general manager filed the petition,
there was no proof attached as to the authorization by the Board. However, when the
petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration a resolution or secretary’s certification
stating that that on October 11, 1999, or ten days prior to the filing of the petition,
Balbin had been authorized by petitioner's board of directors to file said petition. The
Court accepted this certification, although belatedly presented, as a valid
authorization. The Court was reiterated that belated submission of a verification is
allowed the same being not a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement, and as to the
non-forum shopping the same was considered to be valid because the case of the
petitioner must be litigated based on its merit and must not be dismissed based on
technical and procedural infirmities, which were actually cured.