Scribd
Upload
135 views2 pages

Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest S. Aure Facts:: Court

This case involved an ejectment suit filed by Aure and Aure Lending against Aquino over a property that Aure claimed was acquired through a deed of sale from Aquino and her husband. The MeTC and RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the failure to conciliate was not jurisdictional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while failure to conciliate makes a complaint premature, it is not a jurisdictional issue. It further held that Aquino could not object to the lack of conciliation after failing to raise it in her answer, having submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Uploaded by

Krisel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
135 views2 pages

Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest S. Aure Facts:: Court

This case involved an ejectment suit filed by Aure and Aure Lending against Aquino over a property that Aure claimed was acquired through a deed of sale from Aquino and her husband. The MeTC and RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to undergo barangay conciliation. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the failure to conciliate was not jurisdictional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while failure to conciliate makes a complaint premature, it is not a jurisdictional issue. It further held that Aquino could not object to the lack of conciliation after failing to raise it in her answer, having submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Uploaded by

Krisel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest S.

Aure
G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008
FACTS:
Aure and E.S. Aure Lending Investors, Inc. (Aure Lending) filed a
Complaint for ejectment against Aquino before the MeTC. They alleged that they
acquired the subject property from Aquino and her husband Manuel (spouses
Aquino) by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed on 4 June 1996. Aure claimed that
after the spouses Aquino received substantial consideration for the sale of the
subject property, they refused to vacate the same.
The MeTC rendered a Decision in favor of Aquino and dismissed the
Complaint for ejectment for non-compliance with the barangay conciliation
process, among other grounds. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the dismissal of the
Complaint on the same ground that the dispute was not brought before the
Barangay Council for conciliation before it was filed in court. Aure’s Motion for
Reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
The Court of Appeals however reversed the MeTC and RTC Decisions and
remanded the case to the MeTC for further proceedings and final determination of
the substantive rights of the parties. The appellate court declared that the failure of
Aure to subject the matter to barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional flaw and
it will not affect the sufficiency of Aure’s Complaint since Aquino failed to
seasonably raise such issue in her Answer. The Court of Appeals further ruled that
mere allegation of ownership does not deprive the MeTC of jurisdiction over the
ejectment case for jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is
determined by the allegations advanced by the plaintiff in his complaint. Hence,
mere assertion of ownership by the defendant in an ejectment case will not oust the
MeTC of its summary jurisdiction over the same. The CA denied the Motion for
Reconsideration.
In this petition, Aquino posits that failure to resort to barangay conciliation
makes the action for ejectment premature and, hence, dismissible. She likewise
avers that this objection was timely raised during the pre-trial and even
subsequently in her Position Paper submitted to the MeTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not non-recourse to the barangay conciliation process is a
jurisdictional flaw that warrants the dismissal of the ejectment suit filed with the
MeTC. (NO)
RULING:
The Court did not agree with Aquino’s contention.
It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the
requirement of Section 412 of the Local Government Code
on barangay conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree
No. 1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies -- the complaint becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the
controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. The complaint
becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the conciliation process
is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect
the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or
over the person of the defendant.
As enunciated in the landmark case of Royales v. Intermediate Appellate
Court:
Ordinarily, non-compliance with the condition precedent prescribed by P.D.
1508 could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make
his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or
prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent
jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it,
where the defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of
jurisdiction in their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo.
While petitioners could have prevented the trial court from exercising
jurisdiction over the case by seasonably taking exception thereto, they
instead invoked the very same jurisdiction by filing an answer and seeking
affirmative relief from it. What is more, they participated in the trial of the
case by cross-examining respondent Planas. Upon this premise, petitioners
cannot now be allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture by
attacking the jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted
themselves voluntarily. x x x
In the case at bar, we similarly find that Aquino cannot be allowed to attack
the jurisdiction of the MeTC over Civil Case No. 17450 after having submitted
herself voluntarily thereto. We have scrupulously examined Aquino’s Answer
before the MeTC in Civil Case No. 17450 and there is utter lack of any objection
on her part to any deficiency in the complaint which could oust the MeTC of its
jurisdcition.
By Aquino’s failure to seasonably object to the deficiency in the Complaint,
she is deemed to have already acquiesced or waived any defect attendant thereto.
Consequently, Aquino cannot thereafter move for the dismissal of the ejectment
suit for Aure and Aure Lending’s failure to resort to the barangay conciliation
process, since she is already precluded from doing so. The fact that Aquino raised
such objection during the pre-trial and in her Position Paper is of no moment, for
the issue of non-recourse to barangay mediation proceedings should be impleaded
in her Answer.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy