Jan Edriel Alfonso

JD 1-B
Date: January 25, 2016, | G.R. No. 198172
Ponente: ARTURO D. BRION - Associate Justice
Petitioner: REGULUS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Respondent: ANTONIO DELA CRUZ
SC Ruling: WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition for review on certiorari. The
decision dated November 23, 2010, and the resolution dated August 10, 2011, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The orders dated
June 30, 2008, and August 26, 2008, of Branch 108 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
are hereby REINSTATED. Costs against respondent Antonio Dela Cruz.

FACTS:
1. Regulus Development, Inc is the owner of an apartment in Pasay and Antonio Dela Cruz
leased two units.
2. The contract of lease for each of the two units similarly provides a lease period of one
month, subject to automatic renewals, unless terminated by Regulus Development, Inc
upon written notice.
3. Regulus Development, Inc sent Antonio Dela Cruz a letter to terminate the lease of the
two subject units.
4. Due to Antonio Dela Cruz’s refusal to vacate the units, Regulus Development, Inc filed a
complaint for ejectment before the MTC of Pasay City.
5. MTC ordered Antonio Dela Cruz to vacate the premises and pay the due rent until
Antonio Dela Cruz complies.
6. Antonio Dela Cruz then appealed to the RTC.
7. Pending appeal, Antonio Dela Cruz consigned the monthly rentals to the RTC due to
Regulus Development, Inc’s refusal to receive the rentals.
8. RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
Antonio Dela Cruz.
9. Antonio Dela Cruz filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA to assail the
RTC orders which granted Regulus Development, Inc’s motion to withdraw funds.
10. CA dismissed under and held that the assailed RTC Orders were issued pursuant to its
equity jurisdiction, by Section 5, Rules 39, and Rules 5 and 6 or Rules 135 of the Rules
of Court.
11. Antonio Dela Cruz’s motion for reconsideration was similarly denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of a notarial seal on the verification and certification against
forum shopping is fatal to the petition.
ARGUMENTS:
1. On the first argument, the respondent merely reiterated the CA’s conclusion that the RTC
had no jurisdiction to order the levy on the respondent’s real property as it no longer falls
under the allowed execution pending appeal.
 2. On the second argument, the respondent contended that the levy on execution and sale at
public auction was null and void, hence the CA decision is not moot and academic.
3. On the third argument, the respondent simply argued that it was too late to raise the
alleged formal defect as an issue.
COURT RULING: Yes, Procedurally, the lack of a notarial seal in the notarial certificate is a
defect in a document that must be executed under oath. However, the court ruled that the defect
in the verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The rule is that
courts should not be unduly strict on procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper
administration of justice. The higher objective of procedural rules is to ensure that the party’s
substantive rights are protected. As much as possible, litigation should be decided on the merits
and not on technicalities. Every party-litigant must be afforded ample opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.
Bar Questions:
2022 Bar Examinations
Remedial Law

In the case for Estafa, the prosecution offered the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt
signed by the accused showing personal receipt of the sum of money from the private
complainant to prove the amount of damage. The accused objected to the offer of the photocopy
on the sole ground that it is a mere reproduction of the original in violation of the original
document rule. The court overruled the accused’s objection and admitted in evidence the
photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt.
Did the court err in admitting the photocopy? Explain briefly.