GR 94436; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94436 ; April 30, 1991
Lagrimas V. Abalos and Josefina A. Pangan, heir of the late Jose R. Abalos, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Pepito Laculob, Nicolas Lacurum, Mateo Respicio, Luis de la Cruz, Benjamin Maracha, Federico Miones and Onofre Fujiwara, Jr., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the registered owners of a lot in Quezon City, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against private respondents. In their answer, private respondents raised the defense that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to petitioners’ failure to undergo barangay conciliation as required by P.D. No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law), alleging the parties resided in the same city. Petitioners subsequently filed a reply, with leave of court, correcting their residence from Quezon City to Caloocan City. Private respondents did not object to this correction.
The trial court proceeded to hear the case on the merits and rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, ordering the eviction of private respondents. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of non-compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement, casting doubt on the veracity of the corrected address.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint for non-compliance with the conciliation process under P.D. No. 1508.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The legal logic is twofold. First, the mandatory conciliation under P.D. No. 1508 applies only when the parties actually reside in the same city or municipality. The law’s text is explicit on this territorial requirement. With petitioners asserting residence in Caloocan City and respondents in Quezon City, and with no objection from respondents to the correction, the condition for mandatory barangay confrontation was absent. The appellate court’s conclusion that the address correction was untruthful was baseless, as it was not supported by evidence but by mere surmise.
Second, and more decisively, private respondents are deemed to have waived any objection to the conciliation requirement. They raised the defense in their answer but subsequently failed to object to the correction of petitioners’ residence. Crucially, they fully participated in the trial on the merits, presenting their case and evidence. This active engagement in the judicial process without persistently invoking the lack of conciliation constitutes a waiver of that procedural defense. A party cannot submit to the court’s jurisdiction, undergo trial, and then, upon receiving an adverse judgment, repudiate the proceedings by resurrecting a precondition they had effectively abandoned. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate decision and remanded the case for a resolution on the merits.