You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988
LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, CONNIE P. HALL, BERNARDO PERALTA an MARIANO
FERNANDEZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FRANCI! ". MILITANTE, #n $#% &a'a&#(y a% ")*+, Co),( o-
F#,%( In%(an&+ o- C+.), B,an&$ /II, E!TRELITO P. CAP0TOLAN, GONZALO P.
CAP0TOLAN, RA10EL C. ANIBAN, E!TANI!LAO L. CAP0TOLAN an 2ILFREDO
ANIBAN, respondents.
Fernando B. Yu for petitioners.
Valeriano S. Carrillo for respondents.

CORTE!, J.:
The case at bar involves the assumption of jurisdiction by a trial court over a complaint
without prior conciliation proceedings between the parties before the Lupong
Tagapayapa as prescribed by Pres. Dec. No. 15! "#atarungang Pambarangay $aw%.
This &ourt issued a Temporary 'estraining (rder on )arch *,1*!+ enjoining
respondent ,udge from ta-ing further action in the case during the pendency of the
petition.
The facts are simple. Private respondents brought action against petitioners before the
then &ourt of .irst /nstance of &ebu, 0ranch 1//, for 2Declaration of Nullity of Deed of
3ale and of Transfer &ertificates of Title2 and doc-eted as &ivil &ase No. '4+15.
Petitioners filed on )arch *, 1*!1 their answer raising special and affirmative defenses
including a counterclaim. 3ubse5uently, the case was set for pre4trial and on 6pril 15,
1*!1, the first pre4trial conference was held.
(n )ay +7,1*!1, petitioners filed a )otion to Dismiss on the ground that the court
never ac5uired jurisdiction over the case for non4compliance with the re5uirement of
conciliation before the Lupong Tagapayapa. The trial court overruled the arguments
raised by the petitioners and denied their motion on ,une 17, 1*!1. )otion for
reconsideration was also denied for being filed out of time. 8ence, this petition for
certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
The present petition is premised on the argument that inasmuch much as the complaint
before the trial court is a proper subject of conciliation before the Lupong Tagapayapa,
non4compliance with such re5uirement is a jurisdictional defect which renders the
complaint vulnerable to dismissal.
The parties do not dispute the fact that the case now before the lower court was never
referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa for conciliation. This &ourt has repeatedly ruled that
the conciliation process at the 0arangay level is a condition precedent for filing of
actions before the regular trial courts and ordinarily, non4compliance therewith could
affect the sufficiency of plaintiff9s cause of action and ma-e his complaint vulnerable to
dismissal on the ground of lac- of cause of action or prematurity :'oyales v.
/ntermediate 6ppellate &ourt, ;.'. No. <57+, ,anuary =1, 1*!>, 1+7 3&'6 >7? @da.
de 0orromeo v. Pogoy, ;.'. No. <=+77, November +*, 1*!=, 1+< 3&'6 +17? )orata v.
;o, ;.'. No. <+==*, (ctober +7, 1*!=, 1+5 3&'6 >>>A. 8owever, failure to raise it as a
defense in the answer or in a timely motion to dismiss is deemed a waiver of such
precondition.
The record shows that petitioners9 answer to the complaint never raised the defense
that the private respondents9 complaint did not comply with the conciliation process
prescribed by Pres. Dec. No. 15!. The failure to raise said defense in the answer is
deemed a waiver thereof which no belated motion to dismiss can rectify.
)oreover, there is no merit to the petitioners9 contention that private respondents9 failure
to comply with the conciliation process is fatal to the trial court9s jurisdiction. The
conciliation procedure under Pres. Dec. No. 15! is not a jurisdictional re5uirement and
its non4compliance cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has already ac5uired
over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. :;onBales v. &ourt of
6ppeals, ;.'. Nos. $45*>*54*7, ,une +<, 1*!7, 151 3&'6 +!7? )illare v. 8ernando,
;.'. No. $455>!, ,une =, 1*!7,151 3&'6 >!>A.
/t is li-ewise noteworthy that petitioners have invo-ed the jurisdiction of the respondent
trial court by an answer and see-ing affirmative relief from it. They cannot now repudiate
that jurisdiction to which they have submitted themselves voluntarily :'oyales v.
/ntermediate 6ppellate &ourt, citing Tijam v. 3ibonghanoy, ;.'. No. $4+1>5, 6pril 15,
1*<!, += 3&'6 +*A.
Cven assuming that petitioners9 motion to dismiss had been filed on time, it is doubtful
whether the $upon has authority over the controversy considering allegations regarding
the residence of the parties involved. Petitioners and private respondents are admittedly
all residents of ,ones 6venue, &ebu &ity, with the eDception of petitioner &onnie P. 8all
who is a citiBen of the Enited 3tates of 6merica and a resident of ;reenberry Drive, $a
Puerte, &alifornia, E.3.6. The ruling in the case of Tavora v. Velasco :;.'. No. <=<7,
3eptember =, 1*!+, 117 3&'6 <1=A resolves this point.
... 3ection + "of Pres. Dec. No. 15!% specifies the conditions under which
the $upon of a barangay 2shall have authority2 to bring together the
disputants for amicable settlement of their disputeF The parties must be
2actually residing in the same city or municipality.2 6t the same time,
3ection =4while reiterating that the disputants must be 2actually residing in
the same barangay 2 or in 2different barangays.2 within the same city or
municipality4une5uivocably declares that the $upon shall have 2no
authority2 over disputes 2involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities,2 eDcept where such
barangays adjoin each other.
Thus, by express statutory inclusion and exclusion, the Lupon shall have
no urisdiction over disputes !here the parties are not actual residents of
the sa"e city or "unicipality, except !here the barangays in !hich they
actually reside adoin each other. :Cmphasis suppliedA.
G8C'C.('C, the petition is hereby D/3)/33CD and the order of the respondent trial
court in &ivil &ase No. '4+15 denying petitioners9 motion to dismiss is 6../')CD.
The Temporary 'estraining (rder issued by this &ourt on )arch *, 1*!+ is hereby
$/.TCD and 3CT 63/DC.
3( ('DC'CD.
Yap, C.#., Fernan, $arvasa, %elencio&'errera, (utierre), #r., Cru), *aras, Feliciano,
(ancayco, *adilla, Bidin, Sar"iento and (ri+o&,-uino, ##., concur.

You might also like