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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157830)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Posture

Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed: April 10, 2002
Complaint filed before the RTC: October 14, 2002
RTC Order dismissing the complaint: February 10, 2003
RTC Order denying motion for reconsideration: March 24, 2003
Supreme Court decision: November 17, 2005

Applicable Law and Legal Issue

The primary legal question concerns the interpretation and application of Sections 408, 409, and 412 of R.A. 7160, specifically the compulsory conciliation requirement involving real property disputes before the barangay lupon (local conciliation body). Under Section 412, conciliation before the lupon is a pre-condition for filing certain cases in court unless specific exceptions apply. Section 409 mandates that disputes involving real property be brought before the lupon of the barangay where the property is located. Section 408 outlines exceptions and ambiguities regarding residence of the parties and exceptions to the lupon’s jurisdiction.

Facts and Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner Dante M. Pascual, through his attorney-in-fact Sagario, filed for annulment of the transfer of the subject property and related damages. Respondent Marilou M. Pascual moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was prematurely filed because the dispute had not undergone mandatory conciliation at the barangay level, as required under Section 412 of the Local Government Code. She based this on the contention that either the parties reside in the same barangay or that the attorney-in-fact’s residence confers jurisdiction on the local lupon.

Petitioner contended that he is the real party in interest and resides abroad; thus, the barangay lupon has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Therefore, the conciliation requirement does not apply. Respondent argued that since Sagario, the attorney-in-fact, resides in the same barangay as she does, the dispute should have been filed first with the lupon, relying on Section 3, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that the real party in interest includes the representative when the case is prosecuted by an attorney-in-fact.

RTC’s Ruling and Reasoning

The RTC ruled that the petition must be dismissed for failure to comply with the conciliation prerequisite, holding that Sagario, as attorney-in-fact and real party in interest, must have filed the case initially before the barangay lupon of Barangay Vira, Roxas, Isabela, where both he and respondent reside. The Court relied on Section 409(c) of the Local Government Code mandating that disputes over real property be filed in the barangay where it is situated and on Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which treats the attorney-in-fact as the real party in interest for purposes of suit. The RTC further cited the Supreme Court's precedent in Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court on the dismissal of cases for failure to comply with the Katarungang Pambarangay law or its successor, R.A. 7160.

Supreme Court Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court clarified that Sections 408 and 409 of R.A. 7160, which govern barangay conciliation jurisdiction, require that the actual residents of the barangay be the parties to the conciliation. The Court emphasized prior jurisprudence under P.D. No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay), which the Local Government Code essentially codified and modified. In Tavora v. Veloso, the Court held that the lupon does not have jurisdiction over disputes if parties are not actual residents of the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays.

The Court pointed out that the attorney-in-fact, Sagario, although representing petitioner, cannot be considered the “actual resident” party for purposes of mandatory barangay conciliation. Applying Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the “real party in interest” is the party entitled to the litigated relief—here, petitioner Dante M. Pascual. Since petitioner resides abroad and is not an actual resident of Barangay Vira, Barangay conciliation under the Local Government Code does not apply to his case. Therefore, prior conciliation before the lupon is not

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157830)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner Dante M. Pascual, a permanent resident of the United States, appointed Reymel R. Sagario as his attorney-in-fact through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated April 10, 2002.
The SPA authorized Sagario to file a case for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-271656, collect monthly rentals from the tenant, negotiate amicable settlement or other dispute resolutions, and execute related documents.
Sagario, pursuant to the SPA, filed a complaint on October 14, 2002, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela, Branch 23 at Roxas, against respondent Marilou M. Pascual and the Register of Deeds, for annulment of title and deed of sale with damages.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting non-compliance with the conciliation provision under Section 412 of the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), contending that the dispute was not first referred to the barangay court.
The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on February 10, 2003, holding that since the dispute involved real property, the case should first be brought to the barangay where the property is located, and that Sagario, as attorney-in-fact and resident of the barangay where the property lies, must bring the dispute before the lupon.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 24, 2003.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari to challenge what he alleged to be palpable legal errors by the RTC.

Issues Presented

Whether the filing of the complaint without prior conciliation before the barangay lupon is fatal, considering the parties' residency and the involvement of an attorney-in-fact.
Whether the attorney-in-fact can be deemed the real party in interest for purposes of compliance with the conciliation requirement under Section 412 of the Local Government Code.
The jurisdictional reach of the barangay lupon in dispute involving real property when the plaintiff is a non-resident, represented by an attorney-in-fact who is a resident of the barangay where the property is located.

Legal Provisions Involved

Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), specifically Sections 408, 409, and 412 concerning barangay conciliation and venue of disputes.
Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sections 2 and 3, relating to real parties in interest and representation by an attorney-in-fact.
Precedents including Tavora v. Veloso, Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Vercide v. Hernandez, and Agbayani v. Belen dealing with jurisdiction and conciliation requirements.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC emphasized Section 409(c) of R.A. 7160, which man