TITLE Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation | GR. No.

149576
MAIN POINT The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the
members of the legal profession. A signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by unqualified persons, something the
law strongly proscribes. Hence, the trial court correctly ruled that respondents answer was invalid and of no legal effect as it
was an unsigned pleading.
FACTS Kenrick Development Corp built a perimeter wall which encroached upon some parcels of land occupied by ATO based on
TCTs derived from TCT No. 17508 registered in the name of one Alfonso Concepcion. When ATO verified the TCTs with the
Land Registration Authority (LRA), it was found that there were no record of TCT no. 17508 and its ascendant title. Land was
also covered by Villamor Air Base.

So OSG, on behalf of LRA, filed a COMPLAINT FOR REVOCATION, ANNULMENT AND CANCELLATION OF
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE in behalf of RP vs. Kenrick and Alfonso Concepcion. Alfonso Concepcion cannot be found so
alias summon by publication done.

Kenrick allegedly filed an answer signed by Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr as their counsel (but later on, during a Senate hearing, it
was found that somebody else signed for Atty. Garlitos but he did not authorize such signing). Case punctuated by various
incidents relative to modes of discovery, pre-trial, postponements or continuances, MTDs, Motion to declare defendant in
default, et al.

Pending hearing, Senate conducted hearing in aid of legislation on the issuances of fake titles and focused on how Kenrick
was able to obtain title to lands wherein it built perimeter fence. Here is where atty. Garlitos denied that he signed the answer
before the RTC. With that admission before the senate, OSG filed Urgent motion to declare Kenrick in default. - answer no
signature of counsel so mere scrap of paper
RTC: Granted, declared defendant in default, allowed RP to present evidence ex parte. Hence, MR was filed but denied.
CA: Reversed RTC decision

ISSUE: Whether or not Kenrick should be considered in default in line with the defect in the pleading

RULING: Yes. Kenrick is really in default, for their answer was not signed therefore the said pleading is deemed as a mere scrap of
paper and thus they are not considered to have submitted any answer at all. On the alleged blanket authority given by Atty.
Garlitos for anyone to sign the draft answer he prepared. Acts of Kenrick was deemed to have adopted the statements of Atty.
Garlitos (that the answer submitted was not signed by him therefore, they have submitted a defective answer) - adoptive
admission.

SIGNED PLEADING: signed by the counsel or the party himself; counsel's signature cannot be delegated and means that he
certifies that he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a good ground to
support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who
can certify to these matters.