G.R. No. 157830. November 17, 2005.

DANTE M. PASCUAL, represented by REYMEL R. SAGARIO, petitioner, vs. MARILOU M. PASCUAL, respondent.

Facts:

RTC:

Dante filed a civil case against his sister Marilou, for the annulment of a TCT, Deed of Absolute Sale, and for the reconveyance
of property with damages.

Dante is a permanent resident of the U.S., who appointed Sagario as his attorney-in-fact through an SPA.
Marilou filed a motion to dismiss.

There was non-compliance with requirement of the LGC that there must have been a confrontation before the Lupon
Chairman or Pangkat, before filing a claim in court.
There is no showing that the dispute was referred to barangay court before the case was filed.
RTC granted the respondent's motion to dismiss.

Where real property or interest therein is involved, the dispute shall be filed before the barangay where the property is
located, regardless of the residence of the parties.
Ordinarily non-compliance with the condition precedent could affect the sufficiency of the cause of action and allow the
complaint to be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

The court was of the opinion that the attorney-in-fact shall be deemed the real party in interest, he was therefore obliged
to bring the case before the barangay.
SC:

Dante elevated the case straight to the SC, questioning the "palpable legal errors' of the RTC.

Petitioner argues that, he, not his attorney in fact is the real party in interest, since he resides abroad, the lupon would
have no jurisdiction.
Ruling:

The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code read:

SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto.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 except:

(f) 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;

In the 1982 case of Tavora v. Veloso, this Court held that where the parties are not actual residents in the same city or
municipality or adjoining barangays, there is no requirement for them to submit their dispute to the lupon as provided for in
Section 6 vis-a-vis Sections 2 and 3 of P.D. 1508

By express statutory inclusion and exclusion, the Lupon shall have no jurisdiction over disputes where the parties are not actual
residents of the same city or municipality, except where the barangays in which they actually reside adjoin each other.

To construe the express statutory requirement of actual residency as applicable to the attorney-in-fact of the party-plaintiff, as
contended by respondent, would abrogate the meaning of a real party in interest as defined in Section 2 of Rule 314 of the
1997 Rules of Court vis-a-vis Section 3 of the same Rule which was earlier quoted but misread and misunderstood by
respondent.

In fine, since the plaintiff-herein petitioner, the real party in interest, is not an actual resident of the barangay where the
defendant-herein respondent resides, the local lupon has no jurisdiction over their dispute, hence, prior referral to it for
conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing in court.

The RTC thus erred in dismissing petitioners complaint.