ABAGATNAN v CLARITO

Aug 7, 2017 | Del Castillo | LocGov

PETITIONERS: Jose, Jimmy, John, Joey, Jojie, & Joy Abagatnan, Jenalyn De Leon, and Josephine Parce,
RESPONDENTS: Sps. Clarito

SUMMARY: Complaint for UDD. RTC held that the lack of barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be
raised initially on appeal. CA reversed, holding that such is a mandatory requirement since the 2 petitioners
who were living elsewhere executed SPAs in favour of their sister. SC held that the requirement does not
apply since not all the petitioners do not reside in the same city/municipality. What was important was the
actual residence of the real party in interest, not of the attorney-in-fact.

DOCTRINE: Need for Barangay Conciliation: Ratio #s 1-3. Application: Ratio #s 4-5.

FACTS
1. Wenceslao Abagatnan and Lydia Capote bought land in Barangay Cogon in Roxas City
from Mateo Ambrad and Soterafia Clarito.
2. Lydia died, so property passed to petitioners.
3. Wenceslao then allowed Sps. Clarito (distant relatives) to construct a house of light
materials on the said land, subject to the condition that they would vacate if he needs it.
4. Petitioners, decided on selling the lot, offered to sell to Clarito, but they declined.
5. Petitioners sent them a letter requiring that they vacate the lot, but they refused.
6. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages before the MTC. It is
noted that it alleged that prior conciliation proceedings before the barangay is not a
prerequisite for the action, since not all petitioners lived in that barangay (Jimmy, Laguna;
Jenalyn, Pasig).
7. Clarito, on the other hand, argue that such is a mandatory requirement that cannot be
dispensed with, especially since Jimmy and Jenny executed SPAs in favour of Josephine
Parce, a resident of the barangay. They also alleged that the lot (bought by Wenceslao)
was only a part of a larger lot, which was covered by an OCT under the name of their
predecessor-in-interest. The original title, however, was allegedly lost during the war, but
a copy of the owner’s duplicate was presented.
8. MTC: for petitioners. It gave credence to the proof of purchase of the lot from the previous
Claritos. Preponderance of evidence favours the petitioners.
9. RTC: denied appeal. RTC agreed with MTC. Further, it held that the lack of barangay
conciliation proceedings cannot be brought up on appeal because it was not an issue in
the Pre-Trial Order.
10. CA: dismissed the complaint. While it gave credence to the factual findings of the MTC and
RTC, it held that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of prior referral to the
Katarungang Pambarangay. Majority of petitioners resided in the barangay, and the 2 out-
of-town petitioners executed an SPA. Since respondents lived in the same barangay, the
dispute is within the Lupon Tagapamayapa’s authority.
11. MR denied, so petitioners filed PetRev with SC.

ISSUES/HELD
1. W/N the prior barangay conciliation as required in Sec. 412 is necessary, despite the fact that not
all of the parties reside in the same city or municipality? NO
RATIO
1. Sec. 412 requires that the parties undergo a conciliation proceeding before the Lupon or the
Pangkat on matters that fall within its authority as a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint
in court.
2. Sec. 408, on the other hand, delineates the Lupon’s authority to people actually residing in
the same city or municipality, subject to certain exceptions. Par. (f) of the same section
creates an exception in cases wherein the parties actually reside in barangays of different
cities and municipalities, unless said barangays adjoin each other and parties agree to have the
dispute settled with the appropriate lupon.
 3. Parties who do not actually reside in the same city or municipality, or in adjoining barangays
are not required to submit the dispute to the lupon before they go to court.
4. Citing Pascual v. Pascual and Banting v. Sps Maglapuz, the Court stated that the requirement
pertains to the real parties in interest. It cannot be applied to an attorney-in-fact, as an
interpretation espousing such would abrogate the definition of a real party in interest.
5. In this case, the Complaint alleged that not all real parties in interest resided in Roxas City, therefore
the lupon has no jurisdiction over the dispute, and prior referral for barangay conciliation is not a
precondition to filing in court. The fact that an SPA was executed in favour of Josephine is
irrelevant insofar as the actual residence requirement under the LGC is concerned.
6. Also, lack of barangay conciliation cannot be brought up on appeal since it was not included in the
Pre-Trial Order. The issues to be tried between the parties is limited to those included in the Pre-
Trial Order, as well as those that may be implied from those listed, or those that may be inferred
by necessary implication.
7. Non-inclusion of the issue bars its consideration during trial.

DISPOSITIVE
Wherefore, petition is GRANTED. CA REVERSED.

NOTES: