Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Miguel vs Montanez

Respondent Montanez secured a loan of P143,864.00 payable in 1 year from petitioner Miguel. Due to
respondent's failure to pay, petitioner filed a complaint before the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The parties
entered into a Kasunduang Pag-aayos wherein the respondent agreed to pay his loan in installments in
the amount of P2,000.00 per month and in the event the house and lot given as collateral is sold, the
respondent would settle the balance in full. However, respondent still failed to pay, hence the Lupon
issued a certification to file action in court in favor of petitioner. Petitioner filed before the Metropolitan
Trial Court a complaint for Collection of Sum of Money which was granted. RTC affirmed but CA reversed
the decision, stating that the proper action should have been an action for the execution of the
Kasunduang Pag-aayos in court (remand to the trial court) and not for collection of sum of money.

Q: Was the CA correct?

No. the complaint for collection of sum of money is proper.

Under Section 417 of the Local Government Code, an amicable settlement or arbitration award may be
enforced by execution by the Barangay Lupon within 6 months from the day of settlement, or by filing
an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal court if beyond 6 months. For
both remedies, the cause of action is the amicable settlement itself. However, that enforcement by
execution of the amicable settlement, in both remedies, is only applicable if the contracting parties have
not repudiated such settlement within 10 days from the date thereof. If the other party has repudiated
the amicable settlement either expressly or impliedly, the other party has two options, to enforce
compromise in accordance with the Local Government Code or Rules of Court as the case may be, or to
consider it rescinded and insist upon his original demand. (in accord with Art 2041 of the CC qualifying
Art 2037)

In this case, while there was a "Kasunduan" before the Barangay Captain, the petitioner's non-
compliance paved the way for the application of Art. 2041 (Civil Code) wherein the respondent may
either enforce the compromise, or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. This paved
the way for application of Art. 2041 because when the respondent chose not to comply with the terms
of their "Kasunduan", such non compliance may be construed as repudiation. Having instituted an action
for collection of sum of money, the petitioner obviously chose to rescind the Kasunduan.

Therefore, the CA took off on the wrong premise that enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos was
the proper remedy. The Ca should have decided the case on the merits and not prolong the
determination of the issues by remanding it to the trial court.
April Martinez, Fritz Martinez, Maria Olivia Martinez vs Rodolfo Martinez

Spouses Daniel Sr. and Natividad Martinez were owners of a parcel of land. They had 3 sons, Rodolfo, Manolo, and
Daniel Jr. Daniel Sr. executed a Last Will and Testament, wherein the land was subdivided into 3 to leave a piece of
land to each of their 3 sons. A year after the Death of Daniel Sr., Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly signed
by Daniel Sr. in favor of Manolo and his wife Lucila, along with it is a TCT. Rodolfo then filed a complaint for
annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of TCT as well as a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of
a public document. Manolo and his wife on the other hand also filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against
Rodolfo, alleging that they are the owners, and that the matter was referred to the barangay conciliation and
settlement pursuant to PD 1508 but no settlement was reached. The certification to file action executed by the
barangay chairman was also attached to the complaint. Rodolfo alleged that the complaint failed to state a
condition precedent, namely, that earnest efforts for an amicable settlement had been exerted and that the
dispute was not referred to the barangay before the complaint was filed. Manolo and his wife then filed an
Amended Complaint, this time they alleged that earnest efforts toward a settlement had been made but the same
proved futile. The spouses Martinez also alleged in their position paper that earnest efforts toward a compromise
had been made and/or exerted by them, but that the same proved futile. No amicable settlement was, likewise,
reached by the parties during the "preliminary conference" because of irreconcilable differences. MTC rendered
judgment in favor of Manolo and wife, ordering respondent to vacate and pay attorney's fees. This was affirmed by
the RTC. But the CA reversed the judgment ruling that Manolo and wife failed to comply with Art 151 of the Family
Code and that defect (before amended complaint) was not cured by an amended complaint because the latter
pleading was not admitted by the trial court. Manolo and wife now allege that the "certification to file action" and
the "allegations in the complaint that the case passed through the barangay but no settlement was reached" are
sufficient compliance to prove that indeed earnest efforts were made but the same have failed prior to the filing of
the complaint. Additionally, Manolo and wife argued that there was no need to comply with Art 151 of the Family
code, considering one of the parties in this case is not a member of the same family.

Q: If you were the judge, how would you resolve the issue?

If I were the judge, I would render judgment in favor of Manolo and his wife.

1st. Article 151 of the Family code: No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should
appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but
failed. If no efforts, the case must be dismissed.

In this case, the wife, being a sister-in-law is not included as family under Art. 150 of the family code which should
be used as reference to know who are members of the family. So no need to comply.

2nd. Under Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, no complaint involving any matter within the authority of
the Lupon shall be instituted or filed directly in court for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation
between the parties and no settlement was reached. Such allegation in the complaint(Amended Complaint), as
well as the "certification to file action" by the barangay chairman, is sufficient compliance with article 151 of the
Family Code. Therefore, certification to file action issued by the barangay chairman and the allegation in the
complaint is sufficient proof that indeed there were efforts made to an amicable settlement, but the same have
failed prior to the filing of the complaint. (Family or not, still because there was a certification to file action issued
by the barangay, it cannot be denied that the dispute passed 1st in the barangay before filing the complaint in
court.)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen