Case Digest: Berba vs Pablo GR No 160032

Berba vs Pablo

G.R. No. 160032                    November 11, 2005

Facts:

Estela L. Berba, a resident of Malate, Manila, was the owner of a parcel of land located at Sta. Ana, Manila covered by TCT No. 63726. A house was constructed on the lot, which she leased to Josephine Pablo and the Heirs of Carlos Palanca sometime in 1976. The lease was covered by a lease contract. Upon its expiration, the lessees continued leasing the house on a month-to-month basis.

The lessees failed to pay the rentals due, and by May 1999, their arrears amounted to P81,818.00.  Berba then filed a complaint for eviction and collection of unpaid rentals only against Pablo in the Office of thePunong Barangay.  On June 5, 1999, Berba and Pablo executed an Agreement approved by the pangkat, as follows:

            “Ako si Josephine Pablo, naninirahan sa 2338 M. Roxas St., Sta. Ana, Manila, na nasasakop ng Barangay 873, Zone 96, ay nangangako kay GG Robert Berba na nagmamay-ari ng aking tinitirahan ay maghuhulog ng halagang Tatlong Libong Piso P3,000.00 kada ika-sampu ng buwan bilang hulog sa aking pagkakautang kay GG Berba na umaabot sa halagang P81,818.00 na ang nasabing halagang ito ay aking huhulugan hanggang aking mabayaran ng buo ang aking pagkakautang.  Ako rin, si Josephine Pablo, ay nangangako na ang hindi ko pagsunod o pagbayad ng buwanang hulog, ako ay kusang aalis sa aking tinitirahan.  Bukod pa sa hulog sa aking pagkakautang, ako rin ay magbabayad ng halagangP3,450.00 bilang aking upa sa aking tinitirahan.”

          By May 2000, Pablo and the lessees still had a balance of P71,716.00.  As of May 1, 2001, the total arrearages of the lessees amounted toP135,115.63. On May 2, 2001, Berba, through counsel, wrote the lessees, demanding payment of the said amount and to vacate the house within 30 days from notice, otherwise she will sue them.  The lessees ignored the demand.  On June 21, 2001, Berba filed a complaint against Josephine Pablo and the Heirs of Carlos Palanca in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila for unlawful detainer.

          Berba, however, failed to append to her complaint a certification from the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa that no conciliation or settlement had been reached. 

In their answer to the complaint, the defendants admitted to have stopped paying rentals because of financial distress. They also alleged that they were not certain if the plaintiff was the owner of the property.  By way of special and affirmative defenses, they averred that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them as she failed to secure a Certificate to File Action from the Lupon.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested to the court that, despite earnest efforts, no amicable settlement was reached.  They defined the main issue as whether or not the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer against the defendants.

Issue:

Whether or not the heirs of Carlos Palanca are bound by the settlement entered into by their deceased predecessor.

Ruling:

No, The Court thus rules that the petitioner’s complaint against respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca was premature. It bears stressing that they were not impleaded by the petitioner as parties-respondents before the Lupon. The petitioner filed her complaint solely against respondent Josephine Pablo.  Moreover, the said respondent heirs were not privy to the said agreement, and, as such, were not bound by it.

In this case, the petitioner and the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca resided in the City of Manila, albeit in different barangays.  The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent heirs was thus a matter within the authority of the Lupon. Hence, the petitioner’s complaint for unlawful detainer and the collection of back rentals should have been first filed before the Lupon for mandatory conciliation, to afford the parties an opportunity to settle the case amicably.  However, the petitioner filed her complaint against the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca directly with the MTC.  Clearly then, her complaint was premature.  The execution of the June 5, 1999 Agreement between petitioner and respondent Josephine Pablo does not amount to substantial compliance to the requirements of the Local Government Code on mandatory barangay conciliation proceedings.