Petra Vda. de Borromeo, petitioner, versus Hon. Julian B.

Pogoy, Municipality/City TrialCourt of Cebu

City and Atty. Ricardo Reyes, respondents.

G.R. No. L-63277 November 29, 1983

Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the rules on Summary Procedure and Barangay
Conciliation

Ponente: Escolin, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner herein seeks to stop respondent Judge Julian B. Pogoy of the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu
from taking cognizance of an ejectment suit for failure of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the
Barangay Lupon for conciliation. The intestate estate of the late Vito Borromeo is the owner of a
building bearing the deceased’s name which was leased and occupied by petitioner Petra Vda. de
Borromeo at a monthly rentalof P500.00 payable in advance within the first five days of the month. On
August 28, 1982, Atty. Ricardo Reyes, administrator of the estate, served upon petitioner a demand
letter for her to pay the overdue rentals corresponding to the period from March to September 1982,
and thereafter to vacate the premises. Petitioner failed to do so and Atty. Reyes instituted an ejectment
case against the former. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case pointing out that the parties are residents
of the same city and must refer the dispute to the barangay court, as required by PD No. 1508,
otherwise known as Katarungang Pambarangay Law. The motion was dismissed thus this case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not going through Lupon was necessary?

HELD:

No. The defense of Atty. Reyes regarding the statute of limitations is unacceptable because the case was
filed on September 16, 1982, less than a month before the letter of demand was served. Forcible entry
and detainer prescribes in one (1) year counted from demand to vacate the premises and the law only
required sixty (60) days upon which the parties should try to reconcile in Lupon.

Respondent had more than nine (9) months left even if reconciliation failed. Under Section 4(a) of PD
No. 1508 referral of a dispute to the Barangay Lupon is required only where the parties thereto are
individuals. An individual means a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution.
Obviously, the law applied only to cases involving natural persons, and not where any of the parties is a
juridical person such as a corporation, partnership, corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc.