GR L 76836; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-76836 June 23, 1988
TRIUMFO GARCES, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and DAISY ESCALANTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Triumfo Garces, owner of an apartment building in Malate, Manila, filed an ejectment complaint against respondent Daisy Escalante, his lessee. Garces alleged the month-to-month verbal lease had expired and Escalante refused to vacate. An amended complaint added that Escalante converted the premises into a boarding house without consent. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for Garces, ordering ejectment.
Escalante appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MeTC. The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and/or lack of jurisdiction, noting both parties were Manila residents. The court found Garces failed to comply with Presidential Decree No. 1508, as the dispute was not submitted for barangay conciliation, and no Certification to File Action was obtained prior to filing the ejectment case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the ejectment complaint should be dismissed for non-compliance with the prior barangay conciliation requirement under P.D. No. 1508.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was proper. P.D. No. 1508 mandates compulsory conciliation for disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay or in different barangays within the same city or municipality before judicial action can be commenced. The law refers to “actual residence” or physical habitation, not legal domicile. The record showed both Garces and Escalante were alleged to be residing in Manila in the pleadings. Escalante’s staying in the Malate apartment five days a week constituted actual residence there for the law’s purposes. Garces’ argument that Escalante’s legal residence was in Cavite was unpersuasive, as disputes arise where people physically live.
Non-compliance with this conciliation procedure, when seasonably raised, renders a complaint premature and subject to dismissal. Although not a jurisdictional defect in the strict sense, it is a condition precedent for filing an action. The Court found Escalante did not waive this requirement, as she raised the issue in her pleadings before the MeTC. Consequently, the complaint was vulnerable to dismissal for prematurity. The Petition was denied, and the MeTC decision was set aside, dismissing the complaint without prejudice.