Under Section 412 of the Local Government Code, no complaint for ejectment shall be filed or instituted directly in court unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat ng tagapag-kasundo, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon or pangkat and attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties. But is this a jurisdictional requirement such that non-compliance therewith results in dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction? This is the question answered in this ejectment case filed by Ernie against Loida, married to Manny.
The subject of this case is a parcel of land situated in Quezon City, with an area of 449 square meters and covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title already registered in the name of Ernie, but still being occupied by the spouses who are its previous owner.
In his action for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Ernie alleged that he and his lending investor corporation acquired said property from the spouses by virtue of a deed of sale executed on June 4, 1996; and that after receiving substantial consideration for the sale of the property, the spouses refused to vacate.
In her answer, Loida however countered that while there was a sale, the Deed of Sale was simulated as it was governed by a memorandum agreement between them and Ernie wherein the latter undertook to secure a loan from a bank or financing institution in his own name and turn over the proceeds of the loan to the spouses. But according to Loida, they never received the proceeds of the loan or benefited from it. Hence Ernie’s title was null and void, said Loida.
Later on during the pre-trial and in her position paper, Loida raised the objection that Ernie’s complaint did not allege that a barangay conciliation proceeding was made, as in fact there was none nor was there any attempt to settle the case amicably at the barangay level.
So on April 20, 1999 the MeTC rendered a decision in favor of Loida and dismissed the complaint for ejectment of Ernie for non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process among others. This was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court on appeal. The RTC stressed that the barangay conciliation process is a condition sine qua non for the filing of the ejectment complaint involving residents of the same barangay and failure to comply therewith constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal of the action. Were the MeTC and the RTC correct?
No. It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of Section 12 of the LGCC on barangay conciliation is much the same as that produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies ‑ the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity and vulnerable to a motion to dismiss since the controversy therein alleged is not yet ripe for judicial determination.
Nevertheless the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendants. It would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication where the defendants fail to object to such exercise in their answer. A defendant cannot be allowed to belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted themselves voluntarily.
Loida in this case cannot therefore be allowed to attack the jurisdiction of the MeTC after having submitted herself voluntarily thereto by her failure to raise in her answer the deficiency of Ernie’s complaint due to aforesaid lack of barangay conciliation proceedings. By such failure, Loida is deemed to have acquiesced or waived any defect attendant thereto. She is already precluded from asking for the dismissal of the ejectment suit due to failure of Ernie to resort to the barangay conciliation process. So the case should be remanded to the MeTC for further proceedings and final determination of the substantive rights of the parties (Aquino vs. Aure, G.R. 153567, February 18, 2008).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net