Heirs of Darantinao v. Fuentes

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 239353. August 8, 2018.]

HEIRS OF LOLITA DARANTINAO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY CESAR DARANTINAO, petitioner, vs.GODOFREDO FUENTES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 239353 — Heirs of Lolita Darantinao, as substituted by Cesar Darantinao v. Godofredo Fuentes

Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the petition is GRANTED.

Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner claims that the parties in this case were not residents of the same barangay, or of adjoining barangays, city or municipality. In fact, respondent acknowledged this when he stated in his Judicial Affidavit that petitioner's mother who was the original plaintiff in this case, Lolita Darantinao (Lolita), was not residing in the disputed property. In view of this, petitioner avers that there was no need to refer the matter for barangay conciliation as a condition precedent to the filing of the complaint in court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in dismissing the complaint due to non-referral of the matter for barangay conciliation, and the CA in affirming the dismissal, therefore erred in such respect. ISHCcT

Essentially, petitioner wants this Court to determine whether Lolita was residing at the same barangay where respondent was living at the time of the filing of the complaint. Clearly, this entails examination of factual matters which is not within the ambit of this Petition for Review on Certiorari. In any case, the CA had already addressed this and the Court is not inclined to depart from its apt ratiocination, viz.:

It appears that Lolita admitted in her Complaint that she is a resident of Block 58 Lot 4 Barangay San Rafael V, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan. She cannot now deny the said admission so as to benefit from her failure to refer the case to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation proceedings prior to the filing of the Complaint.

Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that:

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. . .

'A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied with.' Correspondingly, 'facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him.' 'The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with his pleading.'

Since the parties are both residents of Barangay San Rafael V where the subject property is also located, said dispute should have been brought before the Lupon of the said barangay as required under the Local Government Code. DHITCc

In this case, the dispute was never referred to the Barangay Lupon of San Rafael V for conciliation before Lolita instituted the Complaint against [respondent]. In fact, no allegation of such barangay conciliation proceedings was made in the Complaint before the RTC. Lolita thus failed to comply with a condition precedent before the filing of her Complaint warranting its dismissal. 1

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed February 13, 2018 2 Decision and April 25, 2018 3 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 108329.

SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 44-45.

2.Id. at 39-46; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.

3.Id. at 48-49.