LIBRADA AQUINO v.

ERNEST AURE

DOCTRINE: It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of Section 412 of the
Local Government Code on barangay conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No.
1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies - - the complaint becomes
afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. The
complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional
requirement, so that noncompliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired
over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.

FACTS:

1. Aure and E.S. Aure Lending Investors, Inc. (Aure Lending) filed a Complaint for ejectment against Aquino
before the MeTC docketed as Civil Case No. 17450. In their Complaint, Aure and Aure Lending alleged that
they acquired the subject property from Aquino and her husband Manuel (spouses Aquino) by virtue of a
Deed of Sale executed on 4 June 1996. Aure claimed that after the spouses Aquino received substantial
consideration for the sale of the subject property, they refused to vacate the same.
2. MeTC rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 17450 in favor of Aquino and dismissed the Complaint for
ejectment of Aure for non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process, among other grounds. On
appeal, the RTC affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint on the lack of cause of action.
3. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, reversing the MeTC and RTC. The appellate court declared that
the failure of Aure to subject the matter to barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional flaw and it will not
affect the sufficiency of Aure's Complaint since Aquino failed to seasonably raise such issue in her Answer.
4. The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration interposed by Aquino for it was merely a
rehash of the arguments set forth in her previous pleadings which were already considered and passed
upon by the appellate court in its assailed Decision. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not non-compliance with barangay conciliation proceedings is a jurisdictional defect?

RULING: NO.

1. There is no dispute herein that the present case was never referred to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation
before Aure and Aure Lending instituted Civil Case No. 17450. In fact, no allegation of such barangay
conciliation proceedings was made in Aure and Aure Lending's Complaint before the MeTC. The only issue
to be resolved is whether non-recourse to the barangay conciliation process is a jurisdictional flaw that
warrants the dismissal of the ejectment suit filed with the MeTC.
2. Aquino posits that failure to resort to barangay conciliation makes the action for ejectment premature and,
hence, dismissible. She likewise avers that this objection was timely raised during the pre-trial and even
subsequently in her Position Paper submitted to the MeTC.
3. It is true that the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of Section 412 of the Local
Government Code on barangay conciliation (previously contained in Section 5 of Presidential Decree No.
1508) is much the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies - - the complaint
becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial
determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the conciliation
process is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction
which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.