G.R. No. 211966 , August 7, 2017
JOSE AUDIE ABAGATNAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES JONATHAN CLARITO AND ELSA CLARITO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Lydia Abagatnan, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Roxas City. They alleged that respondents, distant relatives, were allowed in 1990 to occupy a portion of their land in Barangay Cogon, Roxas City, on the condition they would vacate upon demand. In 2006, petitioners demanded respondents vacate the property, but the latter refused. The complaint asserted that prior barangay conciliation was unnecessary as not all petitioners resided in Roxas City; two resided in Laguna and Pasig City. Respondents countered that conciliation was mandatory, noting the non-resident petitioners had executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of a co-petitioner residing in Roxas City.
The MTCC ruled for petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate and pay compensation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the decision on appeal. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The CA held that prior barangay conciliation was mandatory under the Local Government Code, as the dispute was between parties actually residing in the same barangay, and the non-resident petitioners had sufficiently authorized their local representative to settle the dispute.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of prior barangay conciliation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that the issue of non-compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement was waived for not being raised in the pre-trial order. The rule is that the pre-trial order defines the issues for trial, and parties are bound by its terms. Here, respondents did not include the lack of prior conciliation as an issue in the pre-trial order before the MTCC. Consequently, they were barred from raising it on appeal. The Court emphasized that pre-trial is intended to simplify proceedings, and allowing new issues on appeal would defeat this purpose. Since the MTCC and RTC correctly found petitioners had a better right to possession based on the evidence, the dismissal by the CA on a procedural ground that was waived was erroneous. The failure to resort to barangay conciliation, being a matter that could be waived, was deemed waived by respondents’ failure to timely raise it as a triable issue.