Case Digest (G.R. No. 176405)
Facts:
Leo Wee, Petitioner, vs. George de Castro (on his behalf and as attorney‑in‑fact of Annie de Castro and Felomina Uban) and Martiniana de Castro, Respondents, G.R. No. 176405, August 20, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Respondents are registered owners of a two‑storey building covered by TCT No. 16193 in Alaminos City which they leased to petitioner on a month‑to‑month basis for P9,000.00 per month. The parties orally agreed to increase the rent to P15,000.00 effective 1 October 2001; petitioner, however, refused to pay the increased amount. After a failed attempt at barangay conciliation, the Barangay Lupon issued a Certification to file action dated 18 January 2002 stating that conciliation failed regarding the rental increase. On 10 June 2002 respondent George de Castro sent petitioner a letter terminating the lease and demanding possession; petitioner did not vacate.
On 1 July 2002 respondent George de Castro (stating he acted on behalf of his co‑owners) filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Alaminos City Civil Case No. 1990 for ejectment. The Complaint was verified and its Certificate of Non‑Forum Shopping was signed only by George; Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) from his sisters were later attached to a position paper filed on 28 October 2002. During pretrial the parties stipulated, inter alia, that petitioner continued paying only P9,000.00 per month and that the Barangay Lupon had issued the above certification.
On 21 November 2002 the MTC dismissed the ejectment complaint for failure to comply with the prior conciliation requirement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Alaminos City, affirmed the MTC in a decision promulgated 27 June 2005, adding that the complaint failed to allege “unlawful withholding” and that all co‑owners were not joined. Respondents then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 90906). The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated 19 September 2006, reversed the RTC, ordered petitioner to vacate the premises, awarded P15,000.00 monthly rent from March 2002 until turnover, P30,000.00 arrears for October 2001–February 2002 with interest, and P20,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs; its 25 January 2007 Resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner brought a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, assigning four errors: (1) the CA erred in holding conciliation is not jurisdictional; (2)...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (now incorporated in the Local Government Code) a jurisdictional prerequisite whose noncompliance requires dismissal of the ejectment complaint?
- Did respondents’ complaint for ejectment fail for want of an allegation of “unlawful withholding” such that it was jurisdictionally defective?
- May one co‑owner file an ejectment action without joining all other co‑owners?
- Does failure of counsel to attach the Official Receipt of updated IBP dues (per Supreme ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)