Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zamora Vs Heirs of Carmen Izquierdo
Zamora Vs Heirs of Carmen Izquierdo
*
G.R. No. 146195. November 18, 2004
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
25
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
26
conciliation” prior to its filing with the court. This is clear from
the provisions of Section 18 of the same Rule, which reads: “SEC.
18. Referral to Lupon.—Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for
conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508
where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement,
shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only
after such requirement shall have been complied with. This
provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was
arrested without a warrant.”
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
Before us2 is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 12, 2000
and its Resolution dated December 1, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 54541, entitled “Avelina Zamora, et al., petitioners,
versus Heirs of Carmen Izquierdo, represented by the
executrix, Anita F. Punzalan, respondents.”
The records show that sometime in 1973, Carmen
Izquierdo and Pablo Zamora entered into a verbal
stipulation whereby the former leased to the latter one of
her apartment units located at 117-B General Luna Street,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
27
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
28
_______________
29
(a) x x x
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman—Upon 9
receipt of the
complaint, the lupon chairman shall, within the next
working day, summon the respondent(s), with notice to
the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear
before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If
he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days
from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall
forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.” (Italics
supplied)
10
Respondents opposed the motion to dismiss, the same
being prohibited under Section 19 of the 1991 Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure. They prayed that judgment be
rendered as may be warranted by 11
the facts alleged in the
complaint, pursuant to Section 6 of the same Rule.12
On July 9, 1998, the MTC issued an Order denying
petitioners’ motion to dismiss and considering the case
submitted for decision in view of their failure to file their
answer to the complaint.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
30
13
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, contending
that a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
failure to refer the complaint to the Lupon for conciliation
is allowed under Section 19 of the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure, which partly provides:
SO ORDERED.”
_______________
31
_______________
32
1997, August 10, 1997, August 17, 1997 and August 24, 1997
wherein not only the issue of water installation was discussed but
also the terms of the lease and the proposed execution of a written
contract relative thereto. It appears, however, that no settlement
was reached despite a total of nine meetings at the barangay
level.
It is of no moment that the complaint was initially made by
defendant-appellant Avelina Zamora because herein plaintiff-
appellee was given by the Sangguniang Barangay the authority
to bring her grievance to the Court for resolution. While it is true
that the Sertifikasyon dated September 14, 1997 is entitled ‘Ukol
Sa Hindi Pagbibigay Ng Pahintulot Sa Pagpapakabit Ng Tubig’,
this title must not prevail over the actual issues discussed in the
proceedings.
Hence, to require another confrontation at the barangay level
as a sine qua non for the filing of the instant case would not serve
any useful purpose anymore since no new issues would be raised
therein and the parties have proven so many times in20the past
that they cannot get to settle their differences amicably.”
_______________
33
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
II
_______________
34
35
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
1/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168501739f71e77a506003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13