Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    Benjamin P. Quitoriano For Petitioners. Jeremias Zapata For Private Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Terence Valdehueza
    The Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint for failure to comply with conciliation procedures under Presidential Decree No. 1508. However, the Supreme Court found that conciliation was not required as the parties resided in different cities. While the defendants initially raised non-compliance, they participated fully in trial and waived this objection. The Supreme Court ruled that parties cannot fully participate in trial then claim on appeal that conciliation was not conducted. It remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Benjamin P. Quitoriano For Petitioners. Jeremias Zapata For Private Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Terence Valdehueza
    142 views3 pages
    The Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint for failure to comply with conciliation procedures under Presidential Decree No. 1508. However, the Supreme Court found that conciliation was not required as the parties resided in different cities. While the defendants initially raised non-compliance, they participated fully in trial and waived this objection. The Supreme Court ruled that parties cannot fully participate in trial then claim on appeal that conciliation was not conducted. It remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits of the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Abalos vs CA Katarungang Pambarangay

    Original Title

    Abalos vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint for failure to comply with conciliation procedures under Presidential Decree No. 1508. However, the Supreme Court found that conciliation was not required as the parties resided in different cities. While the defendants initially raised non-compliance, they participated fully in trial and waived this objection. The Supreme Court ruled that parties cannot fully participate in trial then claim on appeal that conciliation was not conducted. It remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views3 pages

    Benjamin P. Quitoriano For Petitioners. Jeremias Zapata For Private Respondents

    Uploaded by

    Terence Valdehueza
    The Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint for failure to comply with conciliation procedures under Presidential Decree No. 1508. However, the Supreme Court found that conciliation was not required as the parties resided in different cities. While the defendants initially raised non-compliance, they participated fully in trial and waived this objection. The Supreme Court ruled that parties cannot fully participate in trial then claim on appeal that conciliation was not conducted. It remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    G.R. No.

    94436 April 30, 1991


    LAGRIMAS V. ABALOS and JOSEFINA A. PANGAN, heir of the late Jose R.
    Abalos, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PEPITO LACULOB, NICOLAS
    LACURUM, MATEO RESPICIO, LUIS DE LA CRUZ, BENJAMIN MARACHA, FEDERICO
    MIONES and ONOFRE FUJIWARA, JR., respondents.
    Benjamin P. Quitoriano for petitioners.
    Jeremias Zapata for private respondents.
    GANCAYCO, J.:p
    The focal issue in this case is the legal effect of Presidential Decree No. 1508 in the resolution of the
    suit where the parties nevertheless proceeded to the trial of the case until judgment was rendered.
    On July 22, 1983, a complaint for recovery of possession of property and damages was filed by
    spouses Jose R. Abalos and Lagrimas V. Abalos against private respondents in the Regional Trial
    Court, Quezon City, designated as Lot 12, Block 122-D, situated in Quezon City with an area of
    about 408 square meters, registered in the name of the Abalos spouses under TCT No. 287646
    issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
    After the issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by the trial court on
    May 20, 1986, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
    ACCORDINGLY, in the light of the foregoing disquisition, judgment is hereby rendered
    1) Adjudging the plaintiffs Jose R. Abalos and Lagrimas V. Abalos as the true and
    lawful registered owners of the property covered by TCT No. 287646;
    2) Ordering the intervenors Federico Miones and Onofre Fujiwara, Jr., the
    defendants Mateo Respicio Luis de la Cruz and Benjamin Maracha and all persons
    claiming rights under them, to vacate the premises and to remove their houses
    thereon within sixty (60) days from the finality of this decision; and
    3) In the event of failure or refusal by the said defendants and intervenors to vacate
    the premises and remove their houses on plaintiffs' land within the period herein
    specified, ordering each of the aforesaid defendants and intervenors to pay the
    plaintiffs the amount of P250.00 a month, until said defendants and all persons
    claiming right under them shall have vacated the lot in question and removed all
    improvements thereon.
    Without pronouncement as to cost.
    SO ORDERED. 1
    Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the following issues
    I

    THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO
    COMPLY WITH THE CONCILIATION PROCESS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 6
    OF P.D. NO. 1508, OTHER-WISE KNOWN AS THE KATARUNGAN
    PANGBARANGAY LAW.
    II
    THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE EVICTION OF DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS AND INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2
    OF P.D. NO. 2106.
    III
    ASSUMING IN GRATIA ARGUMENTI THAT THE DECISION OF THE LOWER
    COURT EVICTING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FROM THE PROPERTY IS NOT
    VIOLATIVE OF THE LAW, STILL THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING
    SUCH EVICTION WITHOUT A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY BY A DULY
    LICENSED SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE
    HOUSES OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND INTERVENORS APPELLANTS IN
    RELATION TO THE PROPERTY. 2
    In due course, the appellate court promulgated a decision on February 26, 1990 setting aside the
    appealed judgment, dismissing the complaint and counterclaims with costs against the plaintiffappellees therein. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by the plaintiffs was denied on July 6,
    1990.
    Hence, this petition for review of said decision and resolution the main thrust of which is that the
    appellate court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to go through the pre-litigation process
    under P.D. No. 1508 and to order the respondent court to resolve the merits of the appeal.
    The petition is impressed with merit.
    It is true that in the complaint, the residence of plaintiffs (petitioners herein) was alleged to be at 77
    West Avenue, Quezon City, while the private respondents were alleged to be at Lot 12, Block E-122
    D Bo. Piahan Quezon City. In the answer of private respondents they allege, among others, that
    the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the case as there was no previous compliance with the
    conciliation requirement under P.D. No. 1508. In their reply and answer to the counterclaim, the
    petitioners, with leave of court, changed and corrected their address to 552 Reparo St., Caloocan
    City, as their correct residence. Private respondents did not object thereto.
    The trial court as above related decided the case on the merits and rendered a judgment for the
    petitioners. However, the appellate court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was a
    failure to bring the despite for possible conciliation conference at the barangay level.
    From the foregoing set of facts, the requirement of conciliation before the barangay where the
    property is located cannot be enforced. Petitioners reside in Caloocan City while private respondents
    reside at Barangay Pinahan Quezon City. Section 2 of P.D. No. 1508 provides as follows:
    Sec. 2. Subject matter for amicable settlement. 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:

    1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or


    instrumentality thereof;
    2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute
    relates to the performance of his official functions;
    3) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine
    exceeding P200.00;
    4) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
    5) Such other classes of disputes which the Prime Minister may in the
    interest of justice determine, upon recommendation of the Minister of
    Justice and the Minister of Local Government.
    Moreover, while private respondents raise this defense in their answer, they effectively waived their
    right thereto when they failed to object to the correction of the residence of petitioners from Quezon
    City to Caloocan City, in the reply, with leave of the court. And without raising this issue any further,
    private respondents participated in the trial of the merits of the case.
    The fact that private respondents took part in the trial, argued their case and adduced their evidence
    amounts to a waiver of this defense.
    Of course, the respondent court nevertheless opined that the true address of petitioners is in
    Quezon City and not in Caloocan City as the reply stating the change of residence was made only
    by petitioners after the issue of non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 1508 was raised and
    that the reply was not verified unlike the complaint.
    The Court is not persuaded. The finding of the respondent court is based on surmises and
    assumptions. It should be predicated on the facts brought before it. Petitioners asserted that their
    true address is in Caloocan City. Private respondents did not object thereto and even went to the
    trial on the merits It was only when the judgment against private respondents was rendered that they
    remembered to raise anew and on appeal the non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 1508. It
    is much too late. The conclusion of the respondent court that petitioners were not being truthful in
    correcting their place of residence is totally without basis. On the contrary, in this case, it appears
    the defense of non-compliance with P.D. No. 1508 was availed of by private respondents only to
    further delay the determination of the merits of the case.
    No rule is more settled than that once a party to a case submits to the jurisdiction of the court and
    participates in the trial on the merits of the case, he cannot thereafter, upon a judgment unfavorable
    to his cause, take a total turn about and say that the condition precedent of compliance with P.D. No.
    1508 had not been met. One cannot have the cake and eat it too.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the appealed judgment of the appellate court dated
    February 26, 1990 and its resolution dated July 6, 1990 are hereby SET ASIDE. Let the records of
    the case be remanded to the appellate court for a determination of the merits of the appeal with
    deliberate dispatch. No costs in this instance.
    SO ORDERED.
    Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

    You might also like