Instances when the rule on

requirement of verification was

relaxed
1. Antonina Oshita vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-21180, March
31, 1967
(Change of Name)
While it is true that under Section 2, Rule 103, it is required that the petition for
change of name be verified, nevertheless, no provision exists in the rules which
declares that such a requirement regarding verification is jurisdictional.
. . .verification of a pleading is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading,
the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective.
The court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking, or
act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are
such that the strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that
the ends of justice or the law may thereby be served.

2. The Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Macadaeg, et al., G.R. L-14174,

October 31, 1960
(Petition for Certiorari)
It is true that Rule 67, sec. 1, of the Rules of Court, require that the petition for
certiorari be verified, the apparent object thereof being to insure good faith in the
averments of the petition. Where, however, the material facts alleged are a
matter of record in the court below, consisting in pleadings filed or proceedings
taken therein, and the questions raised are mainly of law, a verification as to the
truth of said facts is not an absolute necessity and may be waived.

3. Tavera vs. El Hogar Filipino, Inc., et al., G.R. L-45963, October 12, 1939
(Sale of Real Property Belonging to the Estate of a Minor)
". . .lack of verification of a petition filed in a probate court for the sale of real
property belonging to the estate of a minor is not a jurisdictional defect. In a
land registration case, notwithstanding the provision of Section 34, Act 496,
which requires that opposition to an application for registration of land should be
sworn to by oppositor, this Court held that an "unverified opposition is sufficient
to confer standing in court to oppositors."

4. Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. 136100, July 24, 2000

(Unlawful Detainer)

The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.

Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the noncompliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the
allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.

5. Villasanta vs. Bautista, L-30874, 26 November 1970

(Original action for mandamus with preliminary injunction. )
b

The Court has consistently held that the reglementary phrase "true of his own
knowledge" is not a talismanic formula, the use of which would insure the
granting of a petition and non-use whereof would result in a decree of dismissal.
It has ruled absence of verification not to be fatally defective in meritorious
cases'. What is important is that the object of the Rule, to insure good faith and
veracity in the material averments of the petition, be complied with, so that the
court may properly act on the case. Here, the petition has complied with the
requirement in form and in substance.
6. Sy v. Habacon-Garayblas, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-860, December 21, 1993

(Gross ignorance of the law, partiality and knowingly rendering an unjust

judgment or order)
7. Buenaventura v. Halili-Uy, No. L-28156, March 31, 1987
(Forcible entry or Detainer)

In the light of the rulings laid down by this Court in the decisions afore-cited, it is
clear that verification is not a jurisdictional, but a formal, requisite. While the petition
now before us was not verified, it was, however, subscribed and sworn to by the
petitioner. (Antonina Oshita vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-21180, March
31, 1967)
(Unlike in Forum-Shopping)
It should be stressed, however, that failure to file a certificate of non-forum
shopping is mandatory and failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused
by the fact that plaintiff is not guilty of forum shopping, and that subsequent compliance
with the certification requirement on non-forum shopping cannot excuse a party failure
to comply in the first instance.

Summary
Instances when the rule on requirement of verification may be relaxed
1. If the attending circumstances are such that the strict compliance with the rule
may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice or the law may thereby be
served or
2. material facts alleged are a matter of record in the court below, or
3. the questions raised are mainly of law, or
4. There is sufficient reglementary phrase to insure good faith and veracity in the
material averments of the petition (i.e. true of his own knowledge), or
5. The petition was subscribe and sworn to by the petitioner or appellant
There is no hard and fast rules regarding relaxation of the rule on verification of
pleadings but what is important is that, while the verification of pleadings is only a formal
rule, there must still be compliance to the substantial rule which is to insure good faith
and veracity in the material averments of the petition so that the court may properly act
on the case.