Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Domingo VS Lucero

    Uploaded by

    Sherelyn Flores Villanueva
    The petitioner filed a case against private respondents regarding a property dispute. The private respondents sought to have the case dismissed, arguing it was not first submitted to conciliation under Presidential Decree 1508. However, the parties resided in different cities so the barangay lupon did not have jurisdiction. Additionally, the private respondents waived their right to object to the lack of conciliation by not raising it in a motion to dismiss before filing their answer. The court ruled the case was not dismissible as the barangay lupon lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving parties from different cities, and the conciliation requirement was not jurisdictional but a condition precedent that was waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Domingo VS Lucero

    Uploaded by

    Sherelyn Flores Villanueva
    38 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a case against private respondents regarding a property dispute. The private respondents sought to have the case dismissed, arguing it was not first submitted to conciliation under Presidential Decree 1508. However, the parties resided in different cities so the barangay lupon did not have jurisdiction. Additionally, the private respondents waived their right to object to the lack of conciliation by not raising it in a motion to dismiss before filing their answer. The court ruled the case was not dismissible as the barangay lupon lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving parties from different cities, and the conciliation requirement was not jurisdictional but a condition precedent that was waived.

    Original Description:

    RESTO

    Original Title

    DOMINGO VS LUCERO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a case against private respondents regarding a property dispute. The private respondents sought to have the case dismissed, arguing it was not first submitted to conciliation under Presidential Decree 1508. However, the parties resided in different cities so the barangay lupon did not have jurisdiction. Additionally, the private respondents waived their right to object to the lack of conciliation by not raising it in a motion to dismiss before filing their answer. The court ruled the case was not dismissible as the barangay lupon lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving parties from different cities, and the conciliation requirement was not jurisdictional but a condition precedent that was waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views1 page

    Domingo VS Lucero

    Uploaded by

    Sherelyn Flores Villanueva
    The petitioner filed a case against private respondents regarding a property dispute. The private respondents sought to have the case dismissed, arguing it was not first submitted to conciliation under Presidential Decree 1508. However, the parties resided in different cities so the barangay lupon did not have jurisdiction. Additionally, the private respondents waived their right to object to the lack of conciliation by not raising it in a motion to dismiss before filing their answer. The court ruled the case was not dismissible as the barangay lupon lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving parties from different cities, and the conciliation requirement was not jurisdictional but a condition precedent that was waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DOMINGO VS ROSERO

    FACTS: The petitioner filed an action for declaration of ownership with damages
    against the private respondent, the spouses Leonilo Bercasio and Candida dela Torre.
    In the complaint, the petitioner that his residence and postal address is at 660 T. Solit
    Street, Pateros, Metro Manila, while the respondents are residents of Barangay Sto.
    Domingo, Pacasao, Camarines Sur. did.

    The private respondents-defendants filed their answer (with counterclaim) 3 to the


    complaint. After filing their answer, the private respondents moved for the dismissal
    of the complaint against them on the sole ground that the petitioner allegedly failed
    to comply with the provisions of Section 6 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1508 which
    require conciliation. The petitioner-movant arguing that the case does not come within
    the ambit of P.D. No. 1508 inasmuch as the parties thereto reside in different
    provinces. Alternatively, the petitioner insisted that even granting that there was
    indeed a need to submit the case first before the barangay court, the private
    respondents' failure to seasonably raise that ground in a motion to dismiss before they
    filed their answer, or in their answer itself, constitutes a waiver of the said ground.
    ISSUE: WON THE CASE WAS DISMISSABLE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A
    CONDITION PRECEDENT; WON THE CASE IS COGNIZABLE BY THE LUPON

    RULING: The Lupon shall have no authority over disputes:

    (1) involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities


    or municipalities, except where such barangays adjoin each other; and

    The Katarungang Pambarangay Law, it is crystal clear that only disputes between
    parties who are actual residents of barangays located in the same city or municipality,
    or residents of adjoining barangays located in two different municipalities, are within
    the jurisdiction of the barangay court.

    The private respondents submit that the subject dispute between them and the
    petitioner is cognizable by the barangay Lupon. They premise their contention on the
    allegation that at the time the petitioner filed his complaint, he was temporarily
    residing in Barangay Sto. Domingo, in Pacasao, Camarines Sur. 10 Residence in a
    barangay within the same municipality if only transient or temporary is not enough
    to vest jurisdiction upon the barangay Lupon.

    The requirement of submission or referral to the Lupong Tagapayapa under P.D.


    1508 is merely a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in court 12 and not
    jurisdictional. 13 The failure of the private respondents to raise timely this ground in
    a motion to dismiss filed before their answer to the complaint, or in their answer,
    constitutes a waiver thereof. 15

    You might also like