GR 101328; (April, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101328 . April 7, 1993.
EMILIANA CANDIDO AND FRANCISCA CANDIDO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE DEMETRIO MACAPAGAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 18, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN AND MILA CONTRERAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Emiliana and Francisca Candido, the legitimate children of the late Agapito Candido, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 697-M-90) before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. The action sought to annul a Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale executed by Sagraria Lozada and others who represented themselves as the sole heirs of Agapito Candido, and to cancel the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-120656-M) issued to private respondent Mila Contreras, the buyer of the subject properties. The defendants included Sagraria Lozada, Jorge Candido, Virginia Candido, Maximina Candido, Eduardo Candido, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, and private respondent Mila Contreras. Private respondent Mila Contreras filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against her on the ground that petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation process under Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law), as she and the petitioners all reside in the same municipality of Obando, Bulacan. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case against Contreras. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against private respondent Mila Contreras for failure to undergo barangay conciliation, considering that the other co-defendants reside in different municipalities, cities, and provinces.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the trial court’s orders. The Court held that compulsory conciliation under P.D. No. 1508 is not justified where, as in this case, the other co-defendants reside in barangays of different municipalities, cities, and provinces. The law provides that the Lupon has authority over disputes between parties actually residing in the same city or municipality or in adjoining barangays of different cities or municipalities. However, the Lupon has no authority over disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangays adjoin each other. Here, the residences of the defendants were in different locations: Taytay, Rizal; Novaliches, Quezon City; Obando, Bulacan (for two defendants); and the official address of the Registrar of Deeds in Bulacan. Therefore, petitioners could immediately file the case in court, as requiring conciliation would not serve the law’s purpose of discouraging litigation among members of the same barangay when other parties reside elsewhere. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to reinstate private respondent Mila Contreras as a defendant.