THEODORE and NANCY ANG VS. SPOUSES ALAN and EM ANG

FACTS: Atty. Aceron duly appointed attorney-in-fact filed a complaint againt the respondent in behalf of the petitioner. The respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss ruled that plaintiff constituted Atty. Aceron as her duly appointed attorney-in-fact to prosecute her claim against the defendants considering that the address given by Atty. Aceron is in QC, hence, being the plaintiff, venue of the action may lie where he resides. The CA annulled and set aside the orders of the RTC, and held that the complaint should have been filed in Bacolod City and not in QC.

ISSUES: Whether Atty. Aceron, being merely a representative of the petitioners, is not the real party in interest in the case.

HELD: Yes. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest in the case below as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by any judgment therein, he was merely appointed by the petitioners as their attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of filing and prosecuting the complaint against the respondents and such appointment. However, does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought to be considered as a real party in interest. Being merely a representative of the petitioners, Atty. Aceron in his personal capacity does not have the right to file the complaint below against the respondents. He may only do so, as what he did, in behalf of the petitioners the real parties in interest.

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. MANUEL DAVID AND MARTHA DAVID

FACTS: Manuel and Martha were married they acquired a lot located at White Plains which was registered in the name of Martha David married to Manuel David. Manuel discovered that Martha had previously sold the property to Titan through a deed of sale. Manuel filed a complaint for annulment of contract and reconveyance against Titan, he alleged that the sale executed by Martha in favor of titan was without his knowledge and consent and therefore void. Titan claimed that it was a buyer in good faith and for value because it relied on the SPA signed by Manuel which authorized Martha to dispose of the property on behalf of the spouses but Manuel claimed that the SPA was spurious and the signature purporting to be his was a forgery, hence Martha has no authority to sell it. RTC issued a decision which invalidated both the Deed of Sale which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the notarized special power of attorney may be discarded contrary to jurisprudence and by giving undue weight to the alleged expert testimony 

HELD: Yes. It is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein, a notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution[ and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption. However, such clear and convincing evidence is present here, while it is true that the SPA was notarized, it is no less true that there were defects in the notarization which mitigate against a finding that the SPA was either genuine or duly executed. The absence of Manuels data supports his claim that he did not execute the same and that his signature thereon is a forgery moreover, we have Manuels positive testimony that he never signed the SPA, in addition to the expert testimony that the signature appearing on the SPA was not Manuels true signature.

PANTALEON V. ASUNCION

FACTS: Pantaleon instituted an action against Asuncion for recovery of a sum of money; summons was issued but was returned since Asuncion is residing in B-24 Tala Estate, Caloocan, Rizal. However, such summons was returned unserved since the Sheriff found out that Asuncion was no longer residing in that address and diligent effort served no purpose. Upon Pantaleon’s motion, the court declared that Asuncion shall be summoned by publication. It was only 46 days after rendition of the decision that Asuncion learned of the complaint as well as of the adverse decision. Asuncion filed a petition for relief alleging that he had not been summoned or notified of the hearing; no copy of the summons and publication were sent since he had not received any; and his nonappearance is excusable it being due to the mistake of the authorities.

ISSUE: Whether or not the summons was served and thus conferred jurisdiction upon the lower court.

HELD: No. A well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in personam, like the one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant. Although a state legislature has more control over the form of service on its own residents than nonresidents, it has been held that in action in personam service by publication on resident defendants, who are personally within the state and can be found therein is not "due process of law", and a statute allowing it is unconstitutional. Lastly, from the viewpoint of substantial justice and equity, we are of the opinion that defendant's petition for relief should have been granted because to begin with, it was filed well within the periods provided in the Rules of Court. Secondly, and, this is more important, defendant's verified answer, which was attached to said petition, contains allegations which, if true, constitute a good defense. 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: A case was filed against the respondents before the Sandiganbayan, as Civil Case No. 0009 spawned numerous incidental cases, among them, Civil Case No. 0130, the present respondents were not made parties either in Civil Case No. 0130. Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130, with Civil Case No. 0009. In Civil Case No. 0130, testimony of Mr. Bane was taken by way of deposition to prove the ownership issue in favor of the petitioner and/or establish the prima facie factual foundation for sequestration of ETPI’s Class A stock. As to Civil Case No. 009, the petitioner filed a motion to adopt the testimonies of the witnesses in Civil Case No. 0130, including the deposition of Mr. Maurice Bane which was denied by Sandiganbayan . Bane deposition was not included as part of its offered exhibits, they filed a second and third motion with prayer for re-opening of the case for the purpose of introducing additional evidence and requested the court to take judicial notice of the facts established by the Bane deposition but denied by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to admit the Bane deposition notwithstanding the prior consolidation of Civil Case No. 0009 and Civil Case No. 0130.

HELD: No. Consolidated actions were originally independent of one another and the fact that in the present case the party respondents to Civil Case No. 0009 (an action for reconveyance, accounting, restitution and damages) are not parties to Civil Case No. 0130 (a special civil action filed by an ETPI stockholder involving a corporate squabble within ETPI), the conclusion that the Sandiganbayan in fact intended an actual consolidation and, together with the parties affected, acted towards that end - where the actions become fused and unidentifiable from one another and where the evidence appreciated in one action is also appreciated in another action must find support in the proceedings held below. We stress on this point, too, that while the Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation in 1993 (that is, before the deposition was taken), neither does the Pre-Trial Order issued by the Sandiganbayan in 1997 in Civil Case No. 0009 contain any reference, formal or substantive, to Civil Case No. 0130.