View full case

DANTE M. PASCUAL v. MARILOU M. PASCUAL

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between siblings Dante M. Pascual (petitioner) and Marilou M. Pascual (respondent) over the cancellation of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and the Deed of Sale of Registered Land. The petitioner appointed Reymel R. Sagario as his attorney-in-fact through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to file the case and perform related actions on his behalf. Sagario filed a complaint for annulment of TCT and Deed of Absolute Sale before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela.

The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of non-compliance with the requirement of referring the dispute to the barangay court before filing in court under Section 412 of the Local Government Code. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss, citing Section 409 of the said code, which provides that all disputes involving real property should be brought to the barangay where the property is located, regardless of the residence of the parties. The court emphasized that Sagario, as the attorney-in-fact, should have brought the dispute before the barangay court in Vira, Roxas, Isabela, where the property is located.

The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied, and thus, the present petition challenges the supposed legal errors of the RTC. The petitioner argues that he, not his attorney-in-fact, is the real party in interest, and since he resides abroad, the lupon (barangay court) would have no jurisdiction over the case. The respondent, however, contends that the jurisdiction of the lupon is qualified by Section 408 and 409 of the Local Government Code.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent should be dismissed for non-compliance with the conciliation provision under the Local Government Code.

  2. Whether or not the attorney-in-fact appointed by the petitioner can bring the complaint before the Lupon Tagapayapa.

RULING:

  1. The complaint filed by the petitioner should be dismissed for non-compliance with the conciliation provision under the Local Government Code. The court held that disputes involving real property or any interest therein should be brought before the barangay where the property is located, regardless of the residence of the parties.

  2. The attorney-in-fact appointed by the petitioner can bring the necessary complaint before the Lupon Tagapayapa and appear in person as if he is the owner of the land.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disputes involving real property or any interest therein should be brought before the barangay where the property is located, regardless of the residence of the parties. (Section 409 of the Local Government Code)

  • Non-compliance with the conciliation provision prescribed by the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make the complaint vulnerable to dismissal. (Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court)