G.R. No. L-63277 - Vda. de Borromeo vs. Pogoy

Parties and Background
Petitioner: Petra Vda. de Borromeo, who occupies a building leased from the intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo.
Respondents:

Hon. Julian B. Pogoy – Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City.
Atty. Ricardo Reyes – Administrator of the intestate estate, also representing the nominal plaintiff in the ejectment suit.

Nature of the Dispute
The dispute arises from an ejectment action initiated by Atty. Reyes due to alleged non-payment of rental for the leased building.
The building, bearing the late Vito Borromeo’s name, is leased at a monthly rental of P500.00, payable in advance within the first five days of each month.
A letter dated August 28, 1982, demanded payment of overdue rentals (covering March to September 1982) and vacating the premises, which the petitioner failed to comply with.

Procedural History
On September 16, 1982, Atty. Reyes filed the ejectment suit in the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City (Civil Case No. R-23915).
The complaint was docketed in the civil division and assigned to the sala of Judge Pogoy.
Petitioner later moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the dispute should first have been submitted to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation as required by PD No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law).
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, relying on the presumption of regularity in the clerk’s filing and citing circulars instructing judges to accept filings even when relief from the barangay referral process was not immediately apparent.

Compliance with Referral Requirements and Subsequent Arguments
Petitioner argued that the failure to refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon was a defect, making the trial court’s jurisdiction questionable.
Respondent acknowledged non-availment of the barangay conciliation process but justified it by referring to paragraph 4, Section 6 of PD 1508, claiming that direct filing was permissible to avoid the lapse of the Statute of Limitations.
Evidences showed that the period between the letter-demand (August 28, 1982) and the filing of the complaint (September 16, 1982) was less than a month, leaving ample time remaining under the one-year prescriptive period for actions for forcible entry and detainer pursuant to Article 1147 of the Civil Code.

Is the failure to refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation, as mandated by PD No. 1508, a valid ground to dismiss the ejectment suit?
Does the absence of a certification from the Lupon or its secretary in the complaint affect the regularity of the filing?

Does the exception provided under paragraph 4, Section 6 of PD 1508, which allows direct filing to avoid the exhaustion of the Statute of Limitations, apply in the present case?

How does the classification of the real party in interest – being an intestate estate (a juridical person) – impact the applicability of the barangay conciliation requirement?

Does the presumption of regularity attached to the clerk's filing overcome the technical oversight in not satisfying the precondition of barangay referral, particularly when the dispute involves a juridical entity rather than individuals?