Case Digest (G.R. No. 153567)
Facts:
In Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest S. Aure (G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008), the subject was a 449-sqm parcel in Roxas District, Quezon City, registered as TCT No. 205447. On June 4, 1996, petitioner Librada M. Aquino and her husband executed a Deed of Sale in favor of respondent Ernest S. Aure and E.S. Aure Lending Investors, Inc. (“Aure Lending”), which alleged substantial consideration had been paid but possession was never surrendered. On April 2, 1997, Aure and Aure Lending filed an ejectment complaint against Aquino in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), alleging unlawful withholding of possession. Aquino answered, contending lack of cause of action and invoking a Memorandum of Agreement under which Aure was to secure a bank loan using the land as collateral and remit the proceeds to the Aquinos—a transaction she claimed was never consummated. On April 20, 1999, the MeTC dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with barangay conciliation requirements, misjoinder of ACase Digest (G.R. No. 153567)
Facts:
- Parties and Transaction
- Petitioner Librada M. Aquino and her husband Manuel (“spouses Aquino”) owned a 449-sqm parcel of land in Roxas District, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 205447 (the subject property).
- Respondent Ernesto S. Aure and E.S. Aure Lending Investors, Inc. (“Aure Lending”) alleged they acquired the subject property by a Deed of Sale dated 4 June 1996; Aure claimed the spouses Aquino refused to vacate after receiving full consideration.
- Pleadings and Lower Court Proceedings
- MeTC (QC, Branch 32) Civil Case No. 17450: Aure/Aure Lending filed ejectment on 2 April 1997; Aquino answered, asserting no valid cause of action, citing a Memorandum of Agreement under which Aure would secure a bank loan using the property as collateral and remit proceeds to the spouses Aquino (which never happened).
- MeTC Decision (20 April 1999): Dismissed the complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation, misjoinder of Aure Lending, and conversion to a case beyond pecuniary estimation.
- RTC (QC, Branch 88) Decision (14 December 2000): Affirmed MeTC dismissal on grounds of mandatory barangay conciliation and the issue of ownership placing the case within RTC jurisdiction; denied Aure’s motion for reconsideration (27 February 2001).
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Aure appealed to the CA, contending that failure to conciliate is not jurisdictional, misjoinder can be cured, and ownership allegations do not oust MeTC jurisdiction.
- CA Decision (17 October 2001): Reversed MeTC and RTC, holding (a) barangay conciliation is not jurisdictional and Aquino waived the defense by not raising it in her answer, and (b) mere allegation of ownership does not deprive the MeTC of summary jurisdiction; remanded for further proceedings.
- CA Resolution (8 May 2002): Denied Aquino’s motion for reconsideration.
- Present Petition
- Aquino filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 153567) under Rule 45, seeking reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution.
- Issues raised:
- Whether non-compliance with barangay conciliation is a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal.
- Whether allegation of ownership ousts the MeTC of jurisdiction over an ejectment case.
Issues:
- Is the failure to undergo barangay conciliation proceedings a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal of an ejectment complaint?
- Does an allegation of ownership by the defendant deprive the Metropolitan Trial Court of its summary jurisdiction over an ejectment case?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)