Valencides Vercide vs Judge Priscilla Hernandez

AM No. MTJ-00-1265
April 6, 2000
Judge Hernandez was charges for grave abuse of authority and ignorance of
the law for her dismissal of a case which complainant Vericde filed against
Galleros for recovery of possession of land. The land is located in Upper
Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Defendant Galleros is a resident of the
same municipality while complainant are residents of Dipolog City. Because
of this fact, the case was filed in court without prior referral to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the lupon has jurisdiction in this case?
2. Whether or not Judge Hernandez is guilty of grave abuse of authority and
ignorance of the law?
Ruling:
1. No, under Sec. 408 of RA 7160:
The lupon shall have authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable
settlement
and Sec. 408 (f) and Sec. 2, Rule VI of the Katarungan Pambarangay Rules:
Exception to amicable settlement: Disputes involving parties
who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each
other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
It is clear that recourse to barangay conciliation proceedings is not
necessary where the parties do not reside in the same municipality or city
or in adjoining barangays. Hence, there is no need for prior referral to the
lupon.
2. Yes, Judge Hernandez showed patent ignorance, if not, disregard of this
Courts rulings on the jurisdiction of the Lupong Tagapamayapa by
erroneous quotation of the provisions of the Katarungan Pambarangay Rules
of implementing RA 7160.

Atty. Veustiano Tavora vs. Rosario Veloso

GR No. L-60367
September 30, 1982
Venustriano Tavora, a resident of Marikina owns an apartment in Quiapo,
which he leased to Julieta Capati, a resident of Quiapo. On account of an
alleged violation of the lease contract, Tavora filed an ejectment suit in
manila. Capati filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
for failure to bring the dispute first to the barangay for possible amicable
settlement under PD 1508.
Judge Veloso dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not the lupon has jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling:
No, Section 2 of PD 1508 specifies the condition under which the Lupon of a
barangay shall have authority to bring together the disputants for
amicable settlement of their dispute. The parties must be actually residing
in the same city or municipality. At the same time Sec. 3 of PD 1508 while
reiterating that the disputants must be actually residing in the same
barangay or in different barangays within the same city or municipality
unequivocably declares that the Lupon shall have no authority over
disputes involving parties who actually resides in barangays of different
cities or municipalities, except when such barangays adjoin each other.

Martinez vs. Martinez

GR No. 162084
June 28, 2005
The spouses Daniel P. Martinez, Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were
the owners of a parcel of land by TCT No. 54334, as well as the house
constructed thereon. On March 6, 1993, Daniel, Sr. executed a Last Will and
Testament directing the subdivision of the property into three lots, namely,
Lots 18-B-2-A, 18-B-2-B and 18-B-2-C. He then handed down the three lots to
each of his sons, namely, Rodolfo, Manolo and Daniel, Jr.; Manolo was
designated as the administrator of the estate. After the death of the
spouses, Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on
September 15, 1996, where the latter appears to have sold Lot 18-B-2 to
Manolo and his wife Lucila.6He also discovered that TCT No. 237936 was
issued to the vendees based on the said deed of sale.
Rodolfo filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of
TCT No. 237936 against his brother Manolo and his sister-in-law Lucila
before the RTC. He also filed a criminal complaint for estafa through
falsification of a public document in the Office of the City Prosecutor against
Manolo, which was elevated to the Department of Justice.
In the meantime, the spouses Manolo and Lucila Martinez wrote Rodolfo,
demanding that he vacate the property. Rodolfo ignored the letter and
refused to do so. This prompted the said spouses to file a complaint for
unlawful detainer against Rodolfo in the MTC of Manila. They alleged that
they were the owners of the property covered by TCT No. 237936, and that
pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1508, the matter was referred to
thebarangay for conciliation and settlement, but none was reached. They
appended the certification to file action executed by the barangay chairman
to the complaint.
In Rodolfos answer he alleged that the complaint failed to state a condition
precedent, namely, that earnest efforts for an amicable settlement of the
matter between the parties had been exerted, but that none was reached.
He also pointed out that the dispute had not been referred to the barangay
before the complaint was filed.
Issue:
Whether or not Art. 150 of the Family Code or earnest efforts for amicable
settlement is necessary before the filing of this case.
Ruling:
No, Art. 151 of the Family Code provide, thus:
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall
prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or
petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been
made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such
efforts were, in fact, made, the case must be dismissed.

This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of
compromise under the Civil Code.
The phrase "members of the family" must be construed in relation to Article
150 of the Family Code, to wit:
Art. 150. Family relations include those:
(1) Between husband and wife;
(2) Between parents and children;
(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.
Hence, a sister-in-law or brother-in-law is not included in the enumeration. In
this case, the decision of the CA that the petitioners were mandated to
comply with Article 151 of the Family code and that they failed to do so is
erroneous.
Mrs. Gayon is plaintiffs sister-in-law, whereas her children are his nephews
and/or nieces. Inasmuch as none of them is included in the enumeration
contained in said Art. 217 which should be construed strictly, it being an
exception to the general rule and Silvestre Gayon must necessarily be
excluded as party in the case at bar, it follows that the same does not come
within the purview of Art. 222, and plaintiffs failure to seek a compromise
before filing the complaint does not bar the same.
Second. The petitioners were able to comply with the requirements of
Article 151 of the Family Code because they alleged in their complaint that
they had initiated a proceeding against the respondent for unlawful detainer
in theKatarungang Pambarangay, in compliance with P.D. No. 1508; and
that, after due proceedings, no amicable settlement was arrived at,
resulting in the barangay chairmans issuance of a certificate to file action.

Berba vs Pablo
G.R. No. 160032 November 11, 2005
Facts:
Estela L. Berba, a resident of Malate, Manila, was the owner of a parcel of
land located at Sta. Ana, Manila covered by TCT No. 63726. A house was
constructed on the lot, which she leased to Josephine Pablo and the Heirs of
Carlos Palanca sometime in 1976. The lease was covered by a lease
contract. Upon its expiration, the lessees continued leasing the house on a
month-to-month basis.
The lessees failed to pay the rentals due, and by May 1999, their arrears
amounted to P81,818.00. Berba then filed a complaint for eviction and
collection of unpaid rentals only against Pablo in the Office of thePunong
Barangay. On June 5, 1999, Berba and Pablo executed an Agreement
approved by the pangkat, as follows:
Ako si Josephine Pablo, naninirahan sa 2338 M. Roxas St.,
Sta. Ana, Manila, na nasasakop ng Barangay 873, Zone 96, ay
nangangako kay GG Robert Berba na nagmamay-ari ng aking
tinitirahan ay maghuhulog ng halagang Tatlong Libong Piso
P3,000.00 kada ika-sampu ng buwan bilang hulog sa aking
pagkakautang kay GG Berba na umaabot sa halagang P81,818.00
na ang nasabing halagang ito ay aking huhulugan hanggang
aking mabayaran ng buo ang aking pagkakautang. Ako rin, si
Josephine Pablo, ay nangangako na ang hindi ko pagsunod o
pagbayad ng buwanang hulog, ako ay kusang aalis sa aking
tinitirahan. Bukod pa sa hulog sa aking pagkakautang, ako rin ay
magbabayad ng halagangP3,450.00 bilang aking upa sa aking
tinitirahan.
By May 2000, Pablo and the lessees still had a balance of P71,716.00.
As of May 1, 2001, the total arrearages of the lessees amounted
toP135,115.63. On May 2, 2001, Berba, through counsel, wrote the lessees,
demanding payment of the said amount and to vacate the house within 30
days from notice, otherwise she will sue them. The lessees ignored the
demand. On June 21, 2001, Berba filed a complaint against Josephine Pablo
and the Heirs of Carlos Palanca in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of
Manila for unlawful detainer.
Berba, however, failed to append to her complaint a certification from
the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa that no conciliation or settlement had been
reached.
In their answer to the complaint, the defendants admitted to have stopped
paying rentals because of financial distress. They also alleged that they
were not certain if the plaintiff was the owner of the property. By way of
special and affirmative defenses, they averred that the plaintiff had no
cause of action against them as she failed to secure a Certificate to File
Action from the Lupon.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested to the court that,
despite earnest efforts, no amicable settlement was reached. They defined
the main issue as whether or not the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for
unlawful detainer against the defendants.
Issue:
Whether or not the heirs of Carlos Palanca are bound by the settlement
entered into by their deceased predecessor.
Ruling:
No, The Court thus rules that the petitioners complaint against respondent
Heirs of Carlos Palanca was premature. It bears stressing that they were not
impleaded by the petitioner as parties-respondents before the Lupon. The
petitioner filed her complaint solely against respondent Josephine Pablo.
Moreover, the said respondent heirs were not privy to the said agreement,
and, as such, were not bound by it.
In this case, the petitioner and the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca
resided in the City of Manila, albeit in different barangays. The dispute
between the petitioner and the respondent heirs was thus a matter within
the authority of the Lupon. Hence, the petitioners complaint for unlawful
detainer and the collection of back rentals should have been first filed
before the Lupon for mandatory conciliation, to afford the parties an
opportunity to settle the case amicably. However, the petitioner filed her
complaint against the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca directly with the
MTC. Clearly then, her complaint was premature. The execution of the June
5, 1999 Agreement between petitioner and respondent Josephine Pablo
does not amount to substantial compliance to the requirements of the Local
Government Code on mandatory barangay conciliation proceedings.