G.R. No. 111915 September 30, 1999
HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS, represented by LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MENA EDORIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the Heirs of Fernando Vinzons, are co-owners of a parcel of land in Daet, Camarines Norte. A portion of this land, measuring 148.5 square meters, has been occupied by respondent Mena Edoria as a lessee since 1951, on which he built a residential house. The monthly rent, which started at P4.00, had reached P13.00 by 1986. In 1986, petitioners filed an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 1923) against Edoria and others, alleging non-payment of rentals. The case was dismissed after trial, finding Edoria was not in arrears. Both parties appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In 1988, while that appeal was pending, petitioners filed another ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 2061) against Edoria and others, alleging refusal to enter into a new agreement and to pay increased rent. The trial court dismissed the case against Edoria due to the pendency of the first case on appeal, and this decision was also elevated to the RTC. While Civil Case No. 2061 was pending appeal, petitioners filed the instant ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 2137) in October 1989, alleging expiration of the lease contract as of 1984, refusal to sign a renewal, and non-payment of rent for one year and ten months. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ordered Edoria to vacate and pay accrued rentals, a decision affirmed in toto by the RTC. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, dismissing the complaint on grounds of litis pendentia, failure to comply with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (PD 1508), and lack of evidence of prior demand to vacate. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Municipal Trial Court properly assumed jurisdiction over the ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 2137).
2. Whether petitioners complied with the barangay conciliation requirement under PD 1508 prior to filing the suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the MTC improperly assumed jurisdiction. The action was for unlawful detainer, which under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, must be filed within one year from the last demand to vacate. Petitioners’ own allegations indicated that the lease contract expired in 1984, after which Edoria became a lessee on a month-to-month basis, and that demands to vacate were made before the filing of earlier cases in 1986 and 1988. The instant complaint filed in October 1989 was therefore filed more than one year from the last demand (made before April 1988). Consequently, the dispossession had lasted for more than one year, making the proper action an accion publiciana cognizable by the RTC, not an unlawful detainer case within the MTC’s jurisdiction.
2. On barangay conciliation, the Court held that petitioners failed to comply with PD 1508. The CA correctly found no clear showing that the dispute was brought before the Barangay Lupon or Pangkat of Barangay 5, Daet, where both parties resided, as there was no barangay certification to file action attached to the complaint. Non-compliance with this condition precedent affects the sufficiency of the cause of action and renders the complaint vulnerable to dismissal. Petitioners’ argument that efforts to settle at the barangay level had failed in the earlier cases (Civil Cases Nos. 1908, 1923, and 2061) did not constitute compliance for the instant case (Civil Case No. 2137). Referral to the barangay should be made prior to the filing of each ejectment case.
Given these conclusions, the Court found no need to discuss other issues, such as litis pendentia or res judicata.