Case Digest (G.R. No. 189602)
Facts:
Heirs of Alfredo Zabala, represented by Menegilda Zabala, Rolando Zabala, Manuel Zabala, Marilyn Zabala, and Adelina Zabala v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Vicente T. Manuel and/or Heirs of Vicente T. Manuel, G.R. No. 189602, May 06, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Vicente T. Manuel (respondent) filed an ejectment complaint on April 1, 2002 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Balanga, Bataan, alleging actual and peaceful possession of a fishpond (Lot No. 1483) and accusing Alfredo Zabala of entering the fishpond on October 15, 2001, dumping soil without an Environment Compliance Certificate, and destroying respondent’s stock; he prayed for ejectment, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Alfredo Zabala moved to dismiss for failure to observe the barangay conciliation requirement under the Local Government Code. Respondent moved for judgment on the ground that Zabala failed to file an answer.
The MTCC, by Order dated May 27, 2003, granted Zabala’s motion and dismissed the complaint for non-compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement. Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga, which, in a decision dated March 30, 2004, reversed the MTCC, finding Zabala had not filed an answer and thus granting judgment under Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; the RTC ordered Zabala (and heirs/subalterns) to vacate Lot No. 1483, restore possession to respondent, and to pay actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Zabala appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision promulgated December 19, 2008 (written by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring), the CA affirmed the RTC’s reversal of the MTCC but deleted the awards for actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees, holding that the barangay conciliation requirement was inapplicable to the ejectment action. The CA denied Zabala’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 26, 2009.
On October 9, 2009, Zabala’s heirs filed a Verified Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 189602) asking the Court to annul the CA Decision and Resolution and to reinstate the MTCC’s May 27, 2003 Order, or alternatively to remand for filing of an answer and due proceedings. The parties subsequently submitted to the Court a written Compromise Agreement dated April 8, 2010, in which the private respondents acknowledged petitioners as owners, agreed to abandon their favorable decisions and to waive...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court approve the parties’ Compromise Agreement?
- If approved, should the Court render judgment in accordance with the Compromise Agreement and terminate ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)