G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988
LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, CONNIE P. HALL, BERNARDO PERALTA and MARIANO FERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XII, ESTRELITO P. CAPUTOLAN, GONZALO P. CAPUTOLAN, RAQUEL C. ANIBAN, ESTANISLAO L. CAPUTOLAN and WILFREDO ANIBAN, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents filed a complaint for “Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale and of Transfer Certificates of Title” against petitioners before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Petitioners filed their answer, raising special and affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. The case proceeded to pre-trial. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the case due to non-compliance with the mandatory conciliation proceedings before the Lupong Tagapayapa as required by Presidential Decree No. 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law). The trial court denied the motion, and a motion for reconsideration was also denied for being filed out of time. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the plaintiffs’ failure to undergo prior barangay conciliation proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the trial court’s order. The legal logic is twofold. First, the conciliation process under P.D. No. 1508 is a condition precedent to the filing of an action in court, but it is not a jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance affects the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action, rendering the complaint vulnerable to dismissal for prematurity or lack of cause of action, but it does not impair the jurisdiction which the court has already acquired over the subject matter or the parties. Second, the defense of failure to comply with barangay conciliation is deemed waived if not raised either in the answer or in a motion to dismiss filed before the answer. In this case, petitioners did not raise this defense in their original answer. By filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief through a counterclaim, they voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. Their belated motion to dismiss, filed after pre-trial had commenced, could not resurrect the waived defense. Additionally, the Court noted a potential issue regarding the Lupon’s authority, as one petitioner was a non-resident of the Philippines, which under P.D. No. 1508 and jurisprudence may preclude the Lupon’s authority over disputes involving parties not actually residing in the same city or municipality.