Fernandez v. Militante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed an action against petitioners before the Court of First Instance of Cebu for "Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale and of Transfer Certificates of Title." Petitioners filed an answer raising special and affirmative defenses, including a counterclaim. Subsequently, a pre-trial conference was held. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the court had not acquired jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the conciliation proceedings prescribed by Pres. Dec. No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law). The trial court denied the motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the non-compliance with the mandatory conciliation process.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the non-compliance with the conciliation proceedings under Pres. Dec. No. 1508, and whether the failure to raise the non-compliance with the conciliation requirement in the answer constitutes a waiver of such defense. Whether the conciliation procedure under Pres. Dec. No. 1508 is a jurisdictional requirement. Whether the Lupon had authority over the controversy given the parties' residences.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the order of the respondent trial court denying petitioners' motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court is LIFTED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction, waiver, and conciliation as a condition precedent: The Court reiterated that while the conciliation process at the Barangay level is a condition precedent for filing actions before regular trial courts, and non-compliance could make a complaint vulnerable to dismissal, the failure to raise this defense in the answer or in a timely motion to dismiss is deemed a waiver. The petitioners' answer did not raise this defense, and their subsequent motion to dismiss could not rectify this omission. The Court emphasized that parties who invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief are deemed to have voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction and cannot later repudiate it. This principle was applied in line with previous rulings, such as Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. On whether the conciliation procedure is a jurisdictional requirement: The Court clarified that the conciliation procedure under Pres. Dec. No. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, its non-compliance cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has already acquired over the subject matter or the person of the defendant. This ruling aligns with the Court's pronouncements in cases like Gonzales v. Court of Appeals and Millare v. Hernando. On the authority of the Lupon: Even assuming the motion to dismiss was timely, the Court noted that it is doubtful whether the Lupon had authority over the controversy. Citing Tavora v. Velasco, the Court explained that Section 2 of Pres. Dec. No. 1508 specifies that the Lupon shall have authority only when parties reside in the same city or municipality. Section 3 further clarifies that the Lupon has no authority over disputes involving parties residing in different cities or municipalities, unless their barangays adjoin each other. In this case, the parties resided in Cebu City, with one petitioner residing in the USA, raising questions about the Lupon's territorial jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The failure to raise the non-compliance with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law's conciliation requirement as a defense in the answer or in a timely motion to dismiss constitutes a waiver of such precondition. Furthermore, the conciliation procedure under Presidential Decree No. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement, and its non-compliance cannot affect the jurisdiction already acquired by the court. Parties who invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief are deemed to have voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction.