EMILIANA CANDIDO AND FRANCISCA CANDIDO, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE DEMETRIO MACAPAGAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 18, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN AND MILA CONTRERAS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside
the Orders^[1]
dated July 10, 1991 and August 9, 1991 of the trial court dismissing the
complaint of petitioners Emiliana and Francisca Candido against private
respondent Mila Contreras on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for
petitioners’ failure to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation process
required by Presidential Decree No. 1508, otherwise known as the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law.

It appears on record that petitioners Emiliana and Francisca
Candido are the only legitimate children of spouses Agapito Candido and
Florencia Santos as shown by the certificates^[2]
of the latter’s Record of Marriage and the petitioners’ Record of Birth.

However, petitioners’ father eventually left his legitimate
family and lived with Sagraria Lozada until his death on May 6, 1987.

On May 11, 1990, Sagraria Lozada, Jorge Candido, Virginia
Candido, Maximina Candido and Eduardo Candido who represented themselves to be
the sole heirs of the late Agapito Candido executed a Deed of Extra-judicial
Settlement of Estate with Sale^[3]
covering parcels of land owned by the latter and sold to private respondent
Mila Contreras in whose name said properties are now registered under TCT No.
T-120656-M.

On November 6, 1990, petitioners instituted an action with the
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 18 in Civil Case No. 697-M-90 against
Sagraria Lozada, Jorge Candido, Virginia Candido, Maximina Candido, Eduardo
Candido, Register of Deeds of Bulacan and private respondent Mila Contreras to
annul the Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, to cancel TCT
No. 120656-M issued in the name of private respondent and to reinstate TCT No.
223602 in the name of Agapito Candido married to Sagraria Lozada.

On December 5, 1990, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss^[4]
on the ground that petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory conciliation
process required under P.D. No. 1508 as she resides in the same municipality
with the petitioners.

On July 10, 1991, the trial court issued an Order, the
dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, as prayed for, let this case be, as it is hereby
DISMISSED in so far as defendant Mila Contreras is concerned for lack of prior
referral of the dispute before the Katarungang Pambarangay, without
prejudice.”^[5]

Thereafter, petitioners   filed
a Motion for Reconsideration^[6]
which was denied in an Order^[7]
dated August 9, 1991.

Hence, this petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the respondent judge dismissing private respondent in the complaint
instituted by the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that the other
defendants in Civil Case No. 697-M-90 reside in different municipalities and
cities.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Section 2 of P.D. No. 1508 provides:

“SEC. 2. Subject
matters for amicable settlement. – The Lupon of each barangay shall have
authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or
municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

“(1)    Where one party is the
government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

“(2)    Where one party is a
public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;

“(3)    Offenses punishable by
imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00;

“(4)    Offenses where there
is no private offended party;

“(5)    Such other classes of
disputes which the Prime Minister may in the interest of justice determine upon
recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Local Government.”

Further, section 3 of the same law provides:

“SEC. 3. Venue.
– Disputes between or among persons actually residing in the same barangay
shall be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said
barangay. Those involving actual residents
of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in
the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides,
at the election of the complainant. However, all disputes which involve real property or any interest
therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or any part
thereof is situated.

“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; x x x.”

From the foregoing provisions of P.D. No. 1508, it is clear that
the barangay court or Lupon has jurisdiction over disputes between parties who are
actual residents of barangays located in the same city or municipality or
adjoining barangays of different cities or municipalities.

In the instant case, petitioners alleged in their complaint that
they are residents of Barrio Paliwas, Municipality of Obando, Bulacan while
defendants’ residences are as follows: Sagraria Lozada and Jorge Candido at Javier Compound, Bo. Sto. Niño,
Taytay, Rizal; Virginia and Maximina Candido at Road 2, Doña Faustina Village,
San Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City; Eduardo Candido at 388 Barrio Paliwas,
Municipality of Obando, Bulacan; Mila Contreras at San Pascual, Municipality of
Obando, Bulacan; and the Registrar of Deeds of Bulacan at his official address
in Bulacan.

The Lupon of the barangay ordinarily has the authority to settle
amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the
same municipality, city or province. Where the complaint does not state that it is one of the excepted cases,
or it does not allege prior availment of said conciliation process, or it does
not have a certification that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by
the parties, the case could be dismissed on motion.^[8]
In the instant case, the fact that petitioners and private respondent, reside
in the same municipality of Obando, Bulacan does not justify compulsory
conciliation under P.D. No. 1508 where the other co-defendants reside in
barangays of different municipalities, cities and provinces.

Petitioners can immediately file the case in court. It would not serve the purpose of the law in
discouraging litigation among members of the same barangay through conciliation
where the other parties reside in barangays other than the one where the Lupon
is located and where the dispute arose.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the appealed Orders
of the trial court dated July 10, 1991 and August 9, 1991 dismissing Civil Case
No. 697-M-90 in so far as defendant Mila Contreras is concerned are hereby
annulled and set aside. The case is
remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for further proceedings and to REINSTATE private respondent Mila Contreras as defendant in civil case
No. 697-M-90. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal, Sr..

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 18-20.

^[3]
Id., at p. 22-23.

^[4]
Id., at pp. 26-28.

^[5]
Id., at p. 34.

^[6]
Id., at pp. 35-40.

^[7]
Id., at p. 41.

^[8]
Morata vs. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983).