Laplana Rem Abagatnan v. Clarito

JOSE AUDIE ABAGATNAN, JOSEPHINE A.
PARCE, JIMMY ABAGATNAN, JOHN ABAGATNAN,

JENALYN A.DELEON, JOEY ABAGATNAN, JOJIE ABAGATNAN, and JOY ABAGATNAN vs. SPOUSES
JONATHAN CLARITO and ELSA CLARITO
G.R. No. 211966, August 7, 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.
Section 412(a) of the LGC requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon
Chairman or the Pangkat as a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint in court. The LGC further
provides that "the lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes," subject to certain
exceptions enumerated in the law. One such exception is in cases where the dispute involves parties
who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, unless said barangay units adjoin
each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon.
In the present case, the Complaint filed before the MTCC specifically alleged that not all the real
parties in interest in the case actually reside in Roxas City. This is true regardless of the fact that
Jimmy and Jenalyn had already authorized their sister and co-petitioner, Josephine, to act as their
attorney-in-fact in the ejectment proceedings before the MTCC. The residence of the attorney-in-fact of
a real party in interest is irrelevant in so far as the "actual residence" requirement under the LGC for
prior barangay conciliation is concerned.
TAGS: Remedial Law; Barangay Conciliation; Local Government Code; Section 412
FACTS:
On August 1, 1967, Wenceslao Abagatnan (Wenceslao) and his late wife, Lydia Capote (Lydia),
acquired a parcel ofland designated as Lot 1472-B, with a total land of 5,046 square meters, and
located at Barangay Cogon, Roxas City from Mateo Ambrad (Mateo) and Soterafia Clarito
(Soterafia).
On October 4, 1999, Lydia died. In 1990, respondents allegedly approached Wenceslao and asked
for permission to construct a residential house made of light materials on a 480-square meter
portion of the subject property. Because respondent Jonathan Clarito (Jonathan) is a distant
relative, Wenceslao allowed them to do so subject to the condition that respondents will vacate the
subject property should he need the same for his own use.
In September 2006, petitioners decided to sell portions of Lot 14 72-B, including the subject
property which was then still being occupied by respondents. They offered to sell said portion to
respondents, but the latter declined.
On October 2, 2006 petitioners sent respondents a Demand Letter requiring the latter to vacate the
subject property within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the letter which was not heeded. Thus, on
November 10, 2006, petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Roxas City.
The Complaint alleged that prior barangay conciliation proceedings are not required as a pre-
condition for the filing of the case in court, given that not all petitioners are residents of Roxas City.
Specifically, petitioner Jimmy C. Abagatnan (Jimmy) resided in Laguna, while petitioner Jenalyn A.
De Leon (Jenalyn) resided in Pasig City.
In their Answer with Counterclaim,respondents argued that prior barangay conciliation is a
mandatory requirement that cannot be dispensed with, considering that Jimmy and Jenalyn had
already executed a Special Power of Attomey14 (SPA) in favor of their co-petitioner and sister,
Josephine A. Paree (Josephine), who is a resident of Roxas City.
The MTCC ruled in favor of the petitioners. The RTC denied the appeal and held that the lack of
barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be brought on appeal because it was not made an issue in
the Pre-Trial Order. The CA likewise denied the appeal as well as the Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply with the prior
barangay conciliation requirement under Section 412 of the LGC, despite the fact that not all real
parties in interest resided in the same city or municipality?
RULING:
Yes.
Section 412(a) of the LGC requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon
Chairman or the Pangkat as a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint in court, thus:
SECTION 412. Conciliation - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. No complaint,

petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed
or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been
a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no
conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon or pangkat secretary and
attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman [or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the
parties thereto.
The LGC further provides that "the lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together
the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes," subject to certain exceptions enumerated in the law. One such exception is in cases
where the dispute involves parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, unless said barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit
their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.
In the present case, the Complaint filed before the MTCC specifically alleged that not all the real
parties in interest in the case actually reside in Roxas City: Jimmy resided in Poblacion, Siniloan,
Laguna, while Jenalyn resided in Brgy. de La Paz, Pasig City. As such, the lupon has no jurisdiction
over their dispute, and prior referral of the case for barangay conciliation is not a precondition to
its filing in court. This is true regardless of the fact that Jimmy and Jenalyn had already authorized
their sister and co-petitioner, Josephine, to act as their attorney-in-fact in the ejectment
proceedings before the MTCC. The residence of the attorney-in-fact of a real party in interest is
irrelevant in so far as the "actual residence" requirement under the LGC for prior barangay
conciliation is concerned.
The RTC correctly pointed out, the lack of barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be brought on
appeal because it was not included in the Pre-Trial Order as a case is limited to those defined in the
pre-trial order as well as those which may be implied from those written in the order or inferred
from those listed by necessary implication.
Thus, petition is impressed with merit.

Laplana Rem Abagatnan v. Clarito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laplana Rem Abagatnan v. Clarito

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laplana Rem Abagatnan v. Clarito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOSE AUDIE ABAGATNAN, JOSEPHINE A.

PARCE, JIMMY ABAGATNAN, JOHN ABAGATNAN,

G.R. No. 211966, August 7, 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.

SECTION 412. Conciliation - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. No complaint,

You might also like