G.R. No. 157830 - Pascual vs. Pascual

Petitioner Dante M. Pascual, a permanent resident of the United States, was represented by his attorney-in-fact, Reymel R. Sagario, pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated April 10, 2002.
Respondent Marilou M. Pascual is the sibling of petitioner and registered owner of the disputed land.

To file a case for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-271656 and related deeds or reconveyance in court.
To collect monthly rentals from the tenant.
To enter into amicable settlements or alternative dispute resolutions involving Marilou Pascual.
To execute and sign all necessary documents related to the above acts.

Pursuant to the SPA, Sagario filed a complaint on October 14, 2002, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela, Branch 23, docketed as Civil Case No. Br. 23-713-02.
The complaint sought annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-271657 and Deed of Absolute Sale of Registered Land, with damages, against Marilou M. Pascual and the Register of Deeds.

Respondent Marilou M. Pascual filed a Motion to Dismiss based primarily on non-compliance with the conciliation requirement under Section 412 of the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), which requires disputes to be referred first to the barangay (barangay court or lupon) before filing in court.
The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss by Order dated February 10, 2003, reasoning that:

Under Section 409 of R.A. 7160, disputes involving real property must be filed in the barangay where the property is located.
Sagario, as attorney-in-fact and resident of the barangay where the property is situated, was deemed the real party in interest required to bring the dispute first to the barangay.
Citing precedent (Royales v. IAC), non-compliance with this conciliation requirement is a ground for dismissal.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by an Order dated March 24, 2003, reiterating that:

The attorney-in-fact is the real party in interest under Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and thus must bring the case before the barangay court.
The attorney-in-fact may appear before the lupon as if he were the owner of the land.

Petitioner argued that he, being the actual real party in interest and residing abroad, is not subject to barangay conciliation jurisdiction.
He cited Agbayani v. Belen to support that the lupon does not have jurisdiction over disputes involving a party residing abroad.

Respondent invoked Section 408(f) and Section 409(c) of the Local Government Code, stressing the mandatory venue in the barangay where the property is located.
Respondent contended that Sagario’s residence in the same barangay confers jurisdiction to the lupon.
Relied on Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that the attorney-in-fact is the real party in interest.

Section 408 of R.A. 7160 enumerates the authority and exceptions to the jurisdiction of the lupon, including disputes involving real property.
Section 409 defines the venue rules for barangay conciliation, specifying that real property disputes are to be filed where the property is located.
Section 412 requires conciliation before filing certain complaints in court, with exceptions.
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court distinguishes the real party in interest and representatives in litigation.

Tavora v. Veloso (1982) held that the lupon has no jurisdiction when parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays.
Vercide v. Hernandez (2000) reaffirmed Tavora’s holding under the Local Government Code.
Agbayani v. Belen (1996) supported the limitation of lupon jurisdiction based on genuine residency of the parties.

The Supreme Court found that Sagario, as attorney-in-fact, is not the real party in interest in the context of residence for barangay conciliation jurisdiction.
Petitioner, the actual party in interest, resided abroad; thus, the lupon had no jurisdiction.
The conciliation requirement under Section 412 does not apply; therefore, the dismissal by the RTC was incorrect.

Whether the dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the conciliation requirement of the Local Government Code (i.e., prior submission to the barangay lupon) was proper, considering the parties' places of residence and the status of the attorney-in-fact.

Whether the attorney-in-fact, by virtue of the Special Power of Attorney and Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, may be deemed the real party in interest for purposes of the barangay conciliation requirement.

Whether the barangay lupon has jurisdiction over disputes involving real property when the plaintiff resides abroad and is represented by a resident attorney-in-fact.