G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982
ATTY. VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA, petitioner, vs. HON. ROSARIO R. VELOSO, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch III of the City Court of Manila, and JULIETA CAPATI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Venustiano T. Tavora, a resident of Marikina, Metro Manila, filed an ejectment suit in the City Court of Manila against his lessee, respondent Julieta Capati, a resident of Quiapo, Manila, for alleged violations of their lease agreement concerning an apartment in Quiapo. The lessee moved to dismiss the complaint on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute should have first been brought to the barangay court for possible amicable settlement under Presidential Decree No. 1508, as no such prior conciliation had been attempted.
The municipal court initially denied the motion to dismiss but later reversed itself and dismissed the ejectment case. Tavora then filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion, to set aside the dismissal and compel the respondent judge to hear the case on the merits.

ISSUE

The sole legal issue is whether the respondent judge is barred from taking cognizance of the ejectment case for non-compliance with the conciliation requirement under P.D. No. 1508, given that the parties are residents of different cities.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that prior barangay conciliation was not required. The legal logic hinges on the jurisdictional scope of the Lupong Tagapayapa under P.D. No. 1508. Section 2 of the decree provides that the Lupon has authority only over disputes between parties “actually residing in the same city or municipality.” Section 3 further explicitly states that the Lupon “shall have no authority over disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities,” except where such barangays adjoin each other.
In this case, the petitioner resides in Marikina while the respondent resides in Quiapo, Manila. These are different cities; therefore, no Lupon is statutorily authorized to take cognizance of their dispute. The Court clarified that the proviso in Section 3, which states that “all disputes which involve real property… shall be brought in the barangay where the real property… is situated,” is merely a rule on venue for disputes otherwise within the Lupon’s authority (i.e., where the parties reside in the same city or municipality). It does not expand jurisdiction to confer authority over disputes between residents of different cities. Since the Lupon had no jurisdiction, the precondition of conciliation under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1508 did not apply. Consequently, the respondent judge erred in dismissing the case. The orders of dismissal were set aside and the judge was directed to hear and decide the ejectment case on its merits.