Aquino v. Aure
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ernest S. Aure and Aure Lending Investors, Inc. filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioner Librada M. Aquino concerning a parcel of land. Aure alleged that he acquired the property from Aquino and her husband via a Deed of Sale and that despite payment, the spouses Aquino refused to vacate. Aquino countered that the sale was governed by a Memorandum of Agreement wherein Aure was to secure a loan using the property as collateral and turn over the proceeds to the spouses Aquino, which he allegedly failed to do, rendering the sale invalid and Aure without legal right to the property. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed Aure's ejectment complaint, citing non-compliance with mandatory barangay conciliation proceedings, improper inclusion of Aure Lending as a plaintiff, and the issue of ownership converting the case to one incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC's decision, emphasizing that barangay conciliation is a conditio sine qua non for filing such cases. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower courts, ruling that the failure to undergo barangay conciliation was not a jurisdictional defect and that Aquino waived this objection by not raising it in her Answer. The appellate court remanded the case to the MeTC for further proceedings. The Petition: Petitioner Librada M. Aquino seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Aquino argues that non-compliance with barangay conciliation proceedings is a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal and that the allegation of ownership in the ejectment case should have divested the MeTC of its jurisdiction. The core issues presented are whether the failure to comply with barangay conciliation is a jurisdictional defect and whether an allegation of ownership ousts the MeTC of its jurisdiction in an ejectment case.
Issue(s)
Whether non-compliance with the barangay conciliation proceedings is a jurisdictional defect that warrants the dismissal of the complaint. Whether an allegation of ownership ousts the MeTC of its jurisdiction over an ejectment case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that non-compliance with barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional defect and constitutes a waiver if not raised in the answer. Furthermore, the MeTC retains jurisdiction over ejectment cases even when ownership is questioned, as the issue of ownership is resolved only to determine possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-compliance with barangay conciliation: The Court reiterated that while failure to comply with barangay conciliation proceedings, as mandated by Presidential Decree No. 1508 and now incorporated in the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), renders a complaint premature and vulnerable to a motion to dismiss, it is not a jurisdictional defect. The conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement that affects the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the defendant. Crucially, the Court emphasized that such a defense must be raised in the Answer. If not pleaded in the Answer or in a motion to dismiss, the objection is deemed waived pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In this case, Aquino failed to raise the objection of non-compliance with barangay conciliation in her Answer, thereby waiving the defense. Her subsequent attempts to raise it during pre-trial and in her position paper were deemed too late. The Court also clarified that a court cannot motu proprio dismiss a case on this ground, as it is not among the exceptions provided for dismissal on the court's own initiative. On the issue of whether allegation of ownership ousts MeTC jurisdiction: The Court affirmed that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint. As long as the complaint demonstrates a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the MeTC acquires jurisdiction. The Court clarified that even if the defendant raises the issue of ownership, the MeTC retains jurisdiction to resolve the issue of possession. The determination of ownership in such cases is merely provisional and is only for the purpose of deciding the issue of possession, and it does not bar a separate action to determine title or ownership. The allegations in Aure's complaint clearly established a cause of action for ejectment, and Aquino's claim of simulation of the deed of sale did not divest the MeTC of its summary jurisdiction over the ejectment case.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with the barangay conciliation process is not a jurisdictional defect that warrants the dismissal of an ejectment suit, especially when the objection is not timely raised in the answer, thereby constituting a waiver of the defense.