Case Summary (G.R. No. 211966)
Petitioner
Eight co-heirs of Lydia Capote and Wenceslao Abagatnan who succeeded to the conjugal share in Lot 1472-B
Respondent
Jonathan and Elsa Clarito, distant relatives of Wenceslao Abagatnan, occupying a 480-sqm portion of Lot 1472-B
Key Dates
• August 1, 1967 – Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot 1472-B to Wenceslao and Lydia Capote
• October 4, 1999 – Death of Lydia Capote; her children succeed to her share
• 1990 – Respondents obtain permission to build on subject property
• October 2, 2006 – Demand letter requiring respondents to vacate within 15 days
• November 10, 2006 – Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages filed in MTCC
• August 17, 2007 – MTCC Decision in favor of petitioners
• January 15, 2008 – RTC Decision denying respondents’ appeal
• June 20, 2013 – CA Decision dismissing complaint for lack of barangay conciliation
• February 3, 2014 – CA Resolution denying reconsideration
• August 7, 2017 – SC Decision in G.R. No. 211966
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), Sections 408(f), 412(a) (mandatory barangay conciliation)
• Rules of Court, Rule 45; Rule 3, Sections 2–3; Rule 18, Section 7
Antecedent Facts
- Wenceslao and Lydia acquired Lot 1472-B by sale in 1967.
- Lydia died in 1999; her eight children inherited her conjugal share.
- In 1990 respondents were permitted to build a light‐materials house on 480 sqm with an agreement to vacate on owner’s demand.
- In September 2006 petitioners offered to sell the subject portion to respondents, who declined.
- On October 2, 2006, petitioners demanded respondents’ vacation; respondents refused.
- On November 10, 2006, petitioners filed an unlawful detainer complaint in MTCC, alleging barangay conciliation was unnecessary because two heirs resided outside Roxas City.
- Respondents countered that all heirs had a special power of attorney in favor of a co-petitioner residing in Roxas City and that prior barangay conciliation was mandatory. They also claimed title under a lost Original Certificate of Title Nos. 9882.
MTCC Ruling
• August 17, 2007 Decision granted ejectment and P500/month occupancy damages from complaint filing until vacatur.
• Findings: Petitioners proved better right of possession via deed of sale, tax declarations, demand letter, and respondents’ refusal.
RTC Ruling
• January 15, 2008 Decision denied respondents’ appeal for lack of merit.
• Held that petitioners’ ownership evidence was preponderant and that lack of barangay conciliation was not raised in the pre-trial order and thus not appealable.
Court of Appeals Ruling
• June 20, 2013 Decision affirmed factual findings but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to undergo mandatory barangay conciliation under Section 412 of the LGC.
• Reasoning: Majority of petitioners and respondents resided in the same barangay; two non-resident heirs had executed an SPA in favor of a resident co-petitioner, bringing the dispute within the Lupon’s authority.
• February 3, 2014 Resolution denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Issue
Whether the CA correctly dismissed the unlawful detainer action for lack of prior barangay conciliation when not all real parties in interest actually reside in the same city or municipality.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Section 412(a) LGC requires conciliation before the Lupon as a precondition to court filing only i
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 211966)
Antecedent Facts
- Wenceslao Abagatnan and his late wife, Lydia Capote, acquired Lot 1472-B (5,046 sq. m.) in Barangay Cogon, Roxas City, by Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 1, 1967.
- Lydia died on October 4, 1999, and her conjugal share of the property passed to her eight children, the co-petitioners.
- In 1990, respondents Jonathan and Elsa Clarito were permitted to build a light-materials residential house on a 480-sqm portion of Lot 1472-B, on the condition that they vacate if Wenceslao needed the land.
- In September 2006, petitioners decided to sell portions of Lot 1472-B, including the occupied portion; respondents declined the offer.
- On October 2, 2006, petitioners sent respondents a demand letter to vacate within fifteen days; respondents refused.
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Proceedings
- Petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages against respondents on November 10, 2006, alleging no need for prior barangay conciliation because not all petitioners resided in Roxas City.
- Respondents answered with counterclaims and argued that Special Powers of Attorney duly authorized Josephine A. Parce (a resident of Roxas City) to represent nonresident co-petitioners in barangay conciliation.
- MTCC Decision (August 17, 2007) held petitioners had superior right to possession, ordered respondents to remove structures, vacate the property, pay P500 per month for use and occupancy, and costs of suit.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Proceedings
- Respondents appealed t