Lagrimas v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a complaint for recovery of possession of property and damages filed by spouses Jose R. Abalos and Lagrimas V. Abalos against private respondents. The property in question is Lot 12, Block 122-D, a 408-square-meter parcel of land located in Quezon City, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 287646 in the name of the Abalos spouses. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, adjudging them as the lawful owners and ordering the defendants and intervenors to vacate the premises and remove their houses, with a daily penalty for failure to comply. 2. Procedural History: Following the Regional Trial Court's decision on May 20, 1986, the private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in a decision promulgated on February 26, 1990, set aside the trial court's judgment, dismissed the complaint and counterclaims, and awarded costs against the plaintiffs. A motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs was denied on July 6, 1990. This led to the present petition for review. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Lagrimas V. Abalos and Josefina A. Pangan (heir of Jose R. Abalos), seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. The main argument is that the appellate court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to undergo the pre-litigation conciliation process mandated by Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law). The petitioners contend that the requirement of barangay conciliation was not applicable due to the parties residing in different cities (Quezon City and Caloocan City) and that, in any event, the private respondents waived this defense by participating in the trial on the merits without objection to the correction of the petitioners' address. They pray for the appellate court to resolve the merits of their appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the conciliation process provided for in Section 6 of P.D. No. 1508, considering the residences of the parties. Whether the private respondents waived their right to raise the defense of non-compliance with P.D. No. 1508 by failing to object to the correction of the petitioners' address and actively participating in the trial on the merits.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The appealed judgment of the Court of Appeals and its resolution are set aside. The records are remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination of the merits of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to comply with P.D. No. 1508: The Supreme Court held that the requirement of conciliation before the barangay where the property is located cannot be enforced in this case. The petitioners resided in Caloocan City, while the private respondents resided in Barangay Pinahan, Quezon City. Section 2 of P.D. No. 1508 limits the authority of the Lupon to parties actually residing in the same city or municipality. Therefore, the barangay conciliation process was not mandatory under these circumstances. On the issue of waiver of defense: The Court found that the private respondents effectively waived their right to raise the defense of non-compliance with P.D. No. 1508. This waiver occurred when they failed to object to the correction of the petitioners' address to Caloocan City in their reply, with leave of court. Furthermore, the private respondents actively participated in the trial on the merits of the case, arguing their case and adducing evidence, without further raising the issue of non-compliance. Such participation amounts to a submission to the court's jurisdiction and a waiver of the defense. The Court emphasized that a party cannot submit to the court's jurisdiction and participate in the trial, only to challenge the jurisdiction on appeal after an unfavorable judgment. This principle is often summarized as "one cannot have the cake and eat it too." The Court found the CA's conclusion that the petitioners were untruthful about their residence to be based on surmises and assumptions, especially since the private respondents did not object to the corrected address and proceeded to trial.
Main Doctrine
A party who participates in the trial on the merits of a case and submits to the jurisdiction of the court cannot later claim that the condition precedent of compliance with P.D. No. 1508 (Katarungan Pambarangay Law) had not been met, as such participation constitutes a waiver of that defense.