149 ANTONIO DOCENA and ALFREDA DOCENA,

petitioners, vs.HON. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, in his

capacityasPresidingJudgeoftheRTC,BranchIII,Guian,
Eastern Samar; RUFINO M. GARADO, Sheriff IV; and
CASIANOHOMBRIA,respondents.
[G.R.No.140153March28,2001]
TOPIC:C.Conjugalpartnershipofgains
9.Ownership,administrationandenjoyment
(a)Jointadministration,FC124cf.FC96,142

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

PONENTE:GONZAGAREYES,J.
FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

PrivaterespondentCasianoHombriafiledaComplaint.fortherecoveryofaparceloflandlocatedinEasternSamaragainsthis
lessees,petitionerspousesAntonioandAlfredaDocena. 3Thepetitionersclaimedownershipofthelandbasedonoccupationsince
timeimmemorial.4AcertainGuillermoAbudaintervenedinthecase.
JudgeRicardoLapesuraissuedanorderinfavorofthespousesDocena.ThedecisionwaslaterreversedbytheCourtofAppeals
andthelattercourtorderedthespousestovacatethepremises.
WhentheorderoftheCourtofAppealsbecamefinalandexecutory,HombriafiledaMotionforExecutionwhichJudgeLapesura
grantedandaWritofExecutionwasissued.Thecourtsheriff,RufinoGarado,aftersomeotherclarificationbythetrialcourt,
issuedaWritofDemolitionagainstthespouses.ThespousesthenfiledaMotiontoSetAsidetheWritofDemolitionwhichwas
deniedbyLapesura.ThespousesfiledaMotionforReconsiderationbutthesamewasdeniedtoo.
Undeterred,thespousesfiledaPetitionforCertiorari andProhibitionbeforetheCourtofAppealsimputinggraveabuseof
discretionagainstLapesurainissuinghisordersdenyingthespousesmotions.
TheCourtofAppealshoweverdeniedthePetitionforCertiorariandProhibitionasitturnedoutthatonlythehusbandAntonio
DocenasignedtheattachedCertificationofNonForumShopping.

ISSUE(S):Whetherornotthesigningofoneofthespousesinacertificateofnonforumshoppingissufficientcompliancewiththe
requirementsforPetitionforCertiorariandProhibition.
HELD:YES.
RATIO:
Ithasbeenourpreviousrulingthatthecertificateofnonforumshoppingshouldbesignedbyallthepetitionersorplaintiffsinacase,
andthatthesigningbyonlyoneofthemisinsufficient.Inthecaseatbar,however,weholdthatthesubjectCertificateofNonForum
ShoppingsignedbythepetitionerAntonioDocenaaloneshouldbedeemedtoconstitutesubstantialcompliancewiththerules.Under
theFamilyCode,theadministrationoftheconjugalpropertybelongstothehusbandandthewifejointly.However,unlikeanactof
alienationorencumbrancewheretheconsentofbothspousesisrequired,jointmanagementoradministrationdoesnotrequirethatthe
husbandandwifealwaysacttogether.Eachspousemayvalidlyexercisefullpowerofmanagementalone,subjecttotheinterventionof
thecourtinpropercasesasprovidedunderArticle124oftheFamilyCode.
Inviewofthepropertyinvolvedwhichisaconjugalproperty,thepetitionquestioningthewritofdemolitionthereoforiginatedfrom
anactionforrecoverybroughtagainstthespousesandisclearlyintendedforthebenefitoftheconjugalpartnershipandthewifeas
pointoutwasintheprovinceofSamarwhereasthepetitionwaspreparedinMetroManila,arigidapplicationoftherulesonforum
shoppingthatwoulddisauthorizeahusbandssigningthecertificationinhisbehalfandthatofhiswifeistooharsh.
Hence,petitionisgrantedandthecaseisremandedtoCAforfurtherproceedings.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):