Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CIVPRO DIGEST | RAMIREZ, LC

    Uploaded by

    NievesAlarcon
    137 views1 page
    1. The petitioners argue that the complaint should be dismissed because the parties did not undergo the mandatory conciliation process before the local Lupong Tagapayapa. 2. The Court ruled that failure to raise the defense of lack of conciliation in the answer or timely motion to dismiss results in a waiver of that precondition. Here, the petitioners did not raise it until later. 3. Moreover, the Lupong Tagapayapa likely did not have authority over this dispute since the parties resided in different cities, except for one petitioner who resided in the US. The statutory provisions limit the Lupong's jurisdiction to intra-city or adjoining barangay disputes.

    Original Description:

    Fernandez vs Militante digest

    Original Title

    Fernandez v Militante

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The petitioners argue that the complaint should be dismissed because the parties did not undergo the mandatory conciliation process before the local Lupong Tagapayapa. 2. The Court ruled that failure to raise the defense of lack of conciliation in the answer or timely motion to dismiss results in a waiver of that precondition. Here, the petitioners did not raise it until later. 3. Moreover, the Lupong Tagapayapa likely did not have authority over this dispute since the parties resided in different cities, except for one petitioner who resided in the US. The statutory provisions limit the Lupong's jurisdiction to intra-city or adjoining barangay disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    137 views1 page

    CIVPRO DIGEST | RAMIREZ, LC

    Uploaded by

    NievesAlarcon
    1. The petitioners argue that the complaint should be dismissed because the parties did not undergo the mandatory conciliation process before the local Lupong Tagapayapa. 2. The Court ruled that failure to raise the defense of lack of conciliation in the answer or timely motion to dismiss results in a waiver of that precondition. Here, the petitioners did not raise it until later. 3. Moreover, the Lupong Tagapayapa likely did not have authority over this dispute since the parties resided in different cities, except for one petitioner who resided in the US. The statutory provisions limit the Lupong's jurisdiction to intra-city or adjoining barangay disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    CIVPRO DIGEST | RAMIREZ, LC

    ISSUE: answer and seeking


    EN BANC The present petition is premised on the affirmative relief
    [G.R. No. L-59801. May 31, 1988.] argument that inasmuch as the complaint before from it.
    LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, CONNIE P. HALL, the trial court is a proper subject of conciliation
    BERNARDO PERALTA and MARIANO before the Lupong Tagapayapa, non-compliance Even assuming that PETs motion to dismiss had
    FERNANDEZ,Petitioners, v. THE with such requirement is a jurisdictional defect been filed on time, it is doubtful whether the
    HONORABLE FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, in his which renders the complaint vulnerable to Lupon has authority over the controversy
    capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of dismissal. considering allegations regarding the residence
    Cebu, Branch XII, ESTRELITO P. of the parties involved.
    CAPUTOLAN, GONZALO P. CAPUTOLAN, RULING: PETs and PRs are admittedly all residents
    RAQUEL C. ANIBAN, ESTANISLAO L. The Court has repeatedly ruled that the of Jones Avenue, Cebu City, with the
    CAPUTOLAN and WILFREDO conciliation process at the Barangay level is a exception of PET Connie P. Hall who is a
    ANIBAN, Respondents. condition precedent for filing of actions before citizen of the United States of America
    the regular trial courts and ordinarily, non-
    TOPIC: WHEN TO RAISE NON-REFERRAL compliance therewith could affect the sufficiency Section 2 (of Pres. Dec. No. 1508) specifies
    Raising the defense of lack of conciliation after of plaintiff’s cause of action and make his the conditions under which the Lupon of a
    the filing of answer constitutes waiver complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground barangay "shall have authority" to bring
    of lack of cause of action or prematurity together the disputants for amicable settlement
    CORTES, J.: However, failure to raise it as a defense of their dispute: The parties must be "actually
    FACTS: in the answer or in a timely motion to residing in the same city or municipality."
    Private respondents (PRs) brought action dismiss is deemed a waiver of such
    against petitioners (PET) before the then precondition. The record shows that PETs At the same time, Section 3 —declares that the
    Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XII, answer to the complaint never raised the Lupon shall have "no authority" over disputes
    for "Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale defense that the PRs complaint did not "involving parties who actually reside in
    and of Transfer Certificates of Title" comply with the conciliation process barangays of different cities or municipalities,"
    PETs filed on March 9, 1981 their answer prescribed by Pres. Dec. No. 1508. except where such barangays adjoin each
    raising special and affirmative defenses other.
    including a counterclaim. OTHER CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS:
    Subsequently, the case was set for pre-trial PETITIONERS SC By express statutory inclusion and
    and on April 15, 1981, the first pre-trial CONTENTION exclusion, the Lupon shall have no
    conference was held. PRs failure to The conciliation jurisdiction over disputes where the parties
    On May 27, 1981, PETs filed a Motion to comply with the procedure under Pres. are not actual residents of the same city or
    Dismiss on the ground that the court never conciliation process Dec. No. 1508 is not a municipality, except where the barangays in
    acquired jurisdiction over the case for non- is fatal to the trial jurisdictional requirement which they actually reside adjoin each other.
    compliance with the requirement of court’s jurisdiction. and its non-compliance
    conciliation before the Lupong Tagapayapa. cannot affect the
    jurisdiction which the WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
    The trial court overruled the arguments
    court has already DISMISSED and the order of the respondent
    raised by the PETs and denied their motion
    acquired over the subject trial court in Civil Case No. R-20105 denying
    on. Motion for reconsideration was also
    matter or over the person petitioners’ motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED. The
    denied for being filed out of time.
    of the defendant Temporary Restraining Order issued by this
    Hence, this petition for certiorari and
    Court on March 9, 1982 is hereby LIFTED and
    prohibition with preliminary injunction. PETs also have They cannot now SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.
    invoked the repudiate that jurisdiction
    jurisdiction of the to which they have
    respondent trial submitted themselves
    court by filing an voluntarily

    You might also like