BOLEYLEY v.

VILLANUEVA
G.R. No. 128734. September 14, 1999

Facts:

Angel L. Boleyley filed a complaint against Albert S. Surla for collection of a sum of money before
the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City. Surla filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that Boleyley did not comply with the Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law requiring as a
condition for the filing of a complaint in court referral of the matter to the barangay lupon chairman
or the pangkat, for conciliation or settlement. Boleyley filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on the ground that Surla was not a resident of Baguio City so that the dispute involving the parties
was not within the authority of the lupon to bring together for conciliation or settlement.

In its decision, the RTC dismiss the case for being premature for not having been referred to the
barangay lupon. Boleyley filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that Surla could not
invoke the Katarungan Pambarangay Law because he was not a resident of Baguio City. But the trial
court denied the motion for lack or merit. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether Boleyley was bound to refer the dispute to the barangay lupon or pangkat for conciliation
or settlement before he could file an action for collection with the regional trial court?

Ruling:

No, referral of the dispute to the barangay lupon or pangkat for conciliation or settlement is not
necessary.

Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the
complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses
set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction
would almost entirely depend upon the defendant.

In this case, the allegations in the complaint filed by Boleyley shows that the parties obviously do
not reside in the same city or municipality, and hence, the dispute is excepted from the requirement
of referral to the barangay lupon or pangkat for conciliation or settlement prior to filing with the
court

The allegation of defendant's actual residence would have been ideal to determine venue, which is
plaintiff's choice of either his place of residence or that of the defendant or any of the principal
defendants. In procedural law, however, specifically for purposes of venue it has been held that the
residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual residence or place of
abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein
with continuity and consistency.
Nevertheless, the complaint clearly implies that the parties do not reside in the same city or
municipality.

Consequently, there is no need of prior referral of the dispute to the barangay lupon or pangkat in
the absence of showing in the complaint itself that the parties reside in the same city or
municipality.

Thus, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, when it dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of cause of action or pre-maturity