7/31/2015

G.R.No.L65629

TodayisFriday,July31,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L65629November24,1986
TERESITAE.AGBAYANIandLUCASF.AGBAYANI,petitioners,
vs.
THEHONORABLEANTONIOM.BELEN,inhiscapacityasRegionalTrialJudge,BranchXXXVIII,Regional
TrialCourt,FirstJudicialRegion,andSPOUSESSEVEROA.VILLAFUERTEANDANAP.VILLAFUERTE,
respondents.

NARVASA,J.:
NullificationissoughtbypetitionersoftheOrderofrespondentJudge 1 dated September 28, 1983, dismissing the civil action
instituted by said petitioners against private respondents and other persons for quieting of title and damages involving three (3) parcels of land in

Dayomaca (Tobuan), Poblacion, Sual, Pangasinan. 2 The Court sustained the defendants' motion to dismiss "on the ground that ... (it had) not yet
acquiredjurisdictiontotrythecase"becauseofthefailureofthepetitionerstosubmitthecontroversytoconciliationproceedingspursuanttoP.D.No.1508
beforefilingtheircomplaintwiththeCourt.TheTrialCourtjustifieditsactionasfollows:

TheCourtaftercarefullyexaminingandstudyingthegroundsetforthbythedefendantsintheirmotiontodismiss,
aswellastheargumentsadvancedbytheplaintiff,togetherwiththepertinentprovisionofP.D.1508citedbythe
parties,herebyfindsthattheinstantactionfallswithintheauthorityoftheLuponTagapayapa,andthereforethe
parties should first appear before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat of the barangay (Tobuan, Sual,
Pangasinan)wherethepropertiesarelocatedforconfrontationasmandatedinSection6ofP.D.1508.Whileit
appears in the record that the parties reside in barargays of different cities or municipalities, the real property
subjectmatterofthecasearenothoweverlocatedindifferentbarangaysbutinoneandthesamebarangay,that
is,BarangayTobuan,Sual,Pangasinan.Basedonthesefactsobtaininginthiscase,itisclearandcleanthatthe
presentactioniswithintheauthorityoftheLupon,hencetheprovisionofP.D.1508shouldfirstbecompliedwith
beforethecomplaintcouldbefliedincourt.3
TheOrderisincorrectandwinhavetobereversed.
PD1508declaresthatgenerally,disputesinvolvingpartiesactuallyresidinginthesamecityormunicipality,orin
adjoiningbarangaysofdifferentcitiesormunicipalities,shouldfirstbebroughtbeforetheappropriateBarangay
Luponwhichshallhavetheauthoritytobringtogetherthepartiesforamicablesettlement."4Theproceedingsbeforethe
Lupon are a "precondition" to the filing of any action or proceeding in court or other "government office," PD 1508 further declaring that "No complaint,
petition,actionorproceedinginvolvinganymatterwithintheauthorityoftheLuponasprovidedinSection2hereofshallbefiledorinstitutedincourtorany
othergovernmentofficeforadjudirationunlesstherehasbeenaconfrontationofthepartiesbeforetheLuponChairmanorthePangkatandnoconciliation
orsettlementhasbeenreachedascertifiedbytheLuponSecretaryorthePangkatSecretary,attestedbytheLuponorPangkatChairman,orunlessthe
settlementhasbeenrepudiated."

Acomplaintorpetitionfiledincourtorothergovernmentofficewithoutcompliancewiththepreconditionmaybe
dismissedonmotionofanyinterestedpartyonthegroundthatthecomplaintfailstostateacauseofaction.6 The
defectmayhoweverbewaivedbyfailingtomakeseasonableobjection,inamotiontodismissoranswer,7 thedefectbeingamereproceduralimperfection
whichdoesnotaffectthejurisdictionofthecourt.

The venue of these prerequisite proceedings for conciliation is the Lupon of the barangay: (1) in which the
parties to the dispute are actually residing, or (2) where the respondent or any of the respondents actually
resides,ifthepartiesareactualresidentsofdifferentbarangayswithinthesamecityormunicipality,or(3)where
therealpropertyoranypartthereofissituated,ifthedisputeaffectsrealpropertyoranyinteresttherein.9
Butthe"precondition"doesnotapplytodisputesoverwhichtheLuponhasnoauthority,namely:those
1)whereonepartyisthegovernmentoranysubdivisionorinstrumentalitythereof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/nov1986/gr_65629_1986.html

1/3

7/31/2015

G.R.No.L65629

2)whereonepartyisapublicofficeroremployee,andthedisputerelatestotheperformanceofhis
officialfunctions
3)involving"offensespunishablebyimprisonmentexceeding30daysorafineexceedingP200.00,"
or"wherethereisnoprivateoffendedparty
4)which the Prime Minister may in the interest of justice determine, upon recommendation of the
MinisterofJusticeandtheMinisterofLocalGovernment10
5)involvingpartieswhoactuallyresideinbarangaysofdifferentcitiesormunicipalities,exceptwhere
suchbarangaysadjoineachotherand
6)involvingrealpropertylocatedindifferentmunicipalities.11
Thequestionpresentedinthiscaseiswhetherthe"precondition,"i.e.,thepriorsubmissionofthedisputetothe
BarangayLuponforconciliation,shouldapplytoactionsaffectingrealpropertysituatedinonecityormunicipality
althoughthepartiesactuallyresideinbarangayswhicharelocatedindifferentcitiesormunicipalitiesanddonot
adjoineachother.
ThequestionhasalreadybeenpasseduponandansweredbythisCourt.InTavoravs.Veloso,etal.,12theCourten

bancheldthatthe"precondition"hadnoapplicationtocasesoverwhichtheLuponhadnoauthority.Specifically,theCourtruledthatbyexpressstatutory
inclusionandexclusion,theLuponshallhavenojurisdictionoverdisputeswherethepartiesarenotactualresidentsofthesamecityormunicipality,except

13

where the barangays in which they actually reside adjoin each other."
In such a situation, where the Lupon is without jurisdiction of the controversy
because the parties are not actual residents of the same city or municipality or of adjoining' barangays, the nature of the controversy is of no moment
whether or not affecting real property or interest therein, located in the same city or municipality. And the principle is not at an altered by the proviso of
Section3ofPD1508(governingvenue)that"disputeswhichinvolverealpropertyoranyinterestthereinshallbebroughtinthebarangaywherethereal
property or any part thereof is situated." The "quoted proviso should simply be deemed to restrict or vary the rule on venue prescribed in the principal
clauses of the first paragraph of Section 3" 14 but obviously, the rule on venue is utterly inconsequential as regards a case over which the Barangay
Lupondoesnot,inthefirstplace,haveanyjurisdiction.

SincethedisputebetweenthepartiesinthiscasewasneverwithintheauthorityorjurisdictionoftheBarangay
Luponbecausethepartiesadmittedlyresideindifferentcitiesandmunicipalities(andnotinadjoiningbarangays),
there was no occasion or reason to invoke or apply the rule on venue governing disputes concerning real
property. Petitioners were therefore under no obligation to comply with the "precondition" of first referring their
disputewithprivaterespondentstotheBarangayLuponforconciliationandamicablesettlementbeforeinstituting
theirsuitincourt.Hence,itwasincorrectfortheTrialCourttoascribethisobligationtothem,andtodismisstheir
actionforomissiontofulfillit.
WHEREFORE,theOrderoftheTrialCourtdatedSeptember28,1983isherebyannulledandsetaside,andthe
caseisremandedtothatCourtforfurtherproceedings,withcostsagainstprivaterespondents.
SOORDERED.
Yap(Chairman),MelencioHerrera,CruzandFeliciano,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1PresidingoverBranch38,1stJudicialRegionRTC.
2CivilCaseNo.15912.
3Emphasissupplied.
4Secs.2and3.
5Sec.6.
6Akintofailuretoexhaustadministrativeremediesorundertakeearnesteffortstocompromisesuits
amongmembersofthesamefamily:Peregrinevs.Panis,133SCRA72.
7Royalesvs.IAC,etal,127SCRA470Ebolvs.Amin,135SCRA438.
8Catorcevs.C.A.,129SCRA210.
9Sec.3,PD1508.
10SeeSec.2,PD1508.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/nov1986/gr_65629_1986.html

2/3

7/31/2015

G.R.No.L65629

11SeeSec.3,PD1508.
12117SCRA613.
13Id.,p.616.
14Id.,p.617.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/nov1986/gr_65629_1986.html

3/3