Garces v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Triumfo Garces, owner of an apartment building, filed an ejectment case against respondent Daisy Escalante for the leased premises (Room B, 1603 Indiana Street, Malate, Manila). Garces alleged that the month-to-month verbal lease had expired and that Escalante refused to vacate. An amended complaint added the ground that Escalante converted the premises into a boarding house without consent. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Garces, ordering Escalante to vacate and pay attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and/or want of jurisdiction, citing non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 1508 (P.D. 1508) regarding barangay conciliation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The present petition for review was filed with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Garces sought to reverse the dismissal, arguing that P.D. 1508 was not applicable because respondent Escalante's intention was to establish residence in Cavite, and her stay in Manila was only during weekdays for work.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the ejectment case due to non-compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement under P.D. 1508. Whether respondent Daisy Escalante's stay in the leased premises in Malate constituted 'actual residence' within the meaning of P.D. 1508.
Ruling
The Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila dated 30 August 1985 is SET ASIDE and the Complaint in Civil Case No. 102100-CV is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-compliance with barangay conciliation: The Supreme Court held that while non-compliance with P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional defect, dismissal of the action is proper if the issue is seasonably raised. In this case, respondent Escalante raised the issue of non-compliance in her pleadings before the MTC. The Court noted that under the Rule on Summary Procedure, a motion to dismiss is prohibited, thus Escalante could not have moved for dismissal in the MTC. However, any ground for dismissal should be raised in the Answer or other allowed pleadings. Escalante's consistent assertion of this procedural defect in her various pleadings before the MTC demonstrated that she did not waive the requirement. Therefore, the dismissal ordered by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was not improper. On the issue of 'actual residence': The Court ruled that P.D. 1508 refers to 'actual residence' or physical habitation, not legal residence or domicile. The policy of the law is to promote dispute settlement where people actually reside. The fact that respondent Escalante stayed in the apartment in Malate five days a week, every week, was sufficient proof that she 'actually resided' there within the meaning of P.D. 1508. Petitioner's argument that her intention was to reside in Cavite was unpersuasive as it focused on legal residence rather than actual habitation, which is the basis for the applicability of P.D. 1508. The Court reiterated that P.D. 1508 applies to disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay or different barangays within the same city or municipality.
Main Doctrine
While non-compliance with the barangay conciliation requirement under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional defect, dismissal of the action is proper if the issue of non-compliance is seasonably raised before the court first taking cognizance of the complaint, especially when the Rule on Summary Procedure prohibits a motion to dismiss.