Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Rosaria Lupitan Pang-et vs.

Catherine Manacnes-Dao-As

Petra Vda. De Borromeo vs. Hon. Julian Pogoy & Atty. Ricardo Reyes
Facts: 1. Petitioner is the occupying the property of the late Vito Borromeo located at Cebu City 2. Respondent is the Administrator of the said estate 3. Respondent sent a demand letter to petitioner demanding payment of the arrear rentals and to vacate the premises 4. Failure of petitioner --- Respondent filed an ejectment case before the MTC of Cebu having respondent Pogoy as the presiding judge 5. Petitioner --- moved to dismiss the case for failure to undergo the Brgy. Conciliation w/c the respondent judge denied due to the alleged regularity in the performance of duty of his COC in filing the case Issue: W/N MTC can take cognizance of the case despite failure in obtaining Certification from the Brgy?

Held: YES!
1. KPL is only applicable where there is a private offended party a. In the case, the estate of the late Vito Borromeo was the real party-in-interest therefore it is not a private offended party (a juridical person) b. Atty. Reyes mere nominal party who is issuing in behalf of the Intestate Estate 2. Case can be filed directly in court 3. Not on the ground that the COC has the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty.

1. Petitioner filed an action for recovery of possession of real property situated in Sitio Abatan, Barrio Dagdag, Sagada before the MTC against the respondent spouses 2. During the course of the trial--- parties thru their counsels --- agreed to refer the matter to the Brgy. Lupon for arbitration in accordance w/ the provisions of the KPL --- MTC proceedings is suspended 3. 3 days later --- Lupon issued a certification to File an Action due to the refusal of the Manacnes spouses to enter into an agreement for arbitration and their insistence that the case should go to court 4. More than a month later --- MCTC remanded the matter for conciliation by the Lupon & ordered the Lupon to render an Arbitration Award 5. In compliance, Lupon rendered an Arbitration Award ordering the petitioner to retrieve the land upon payment to the respondents of PHP 8K for the improvements 6. Respondent aggrieved --- repudiated the award but was rejected by the Lupon 7. 1 month later --- petitioner filed w/ the Lupon a Motion for Execution while respondent filed a motion for the resumption of the proceedings in the original case & prayed that her repudiation be considered by the court 8. MTC denied respondents motion contending that the 10-day period for repudiation had already lapsed and the award became final 9. Almost 2 months later the Brgy. Chairman issued a notice of execution of the award --- but was not implemented 10. 6 yrs later petitioner filed w/ the MTC an action for the enforcement of the award --- respondent argues that the award was void for not having been personally signed by the spouses and in a language not understood by the parties Issue: W/N the case properly undergone the KPL Rules? Held: NO! 1. The award was void: a. Not personally signed by the parties --- even petitioner herself admitted that respondent was not the one who signed the document b. Catherine (daughter of the respondents) --- even if she signed, it will be invalid as the parents cannot be assisted by anyone unless they are minor & incompetent c. Written in English & not understood by the parties d. Consent of the Spouses where vitiated by fraud 2. The respondents never really intended to submit the case for arbitration

Potrebbero piacerti anche