DUTY OF THE COURT was only a reprimand because of the multifarious tasks of Judge

Upon receipt of a new case, the court shall: Maniwang. He was the presiding judge of Padada-Kiblawan
1) Determine the applicability of “SP” or “RP” MCTC, acting judge of Malalag-Sulop as well as Hagonoy-
You have to determine whether small claims Matanaw. The Court here understood his predicament.
Summary Procedure (SP) or Regular
Procedure (RP) in order for you to know the No motion for reconsideration should be allowed for a judgment
periods which are especially important with on the merits. (Lucas vs. Judge Fabros) This will just delay the case.
regard to decisions.
REFERRAL TO LUPON
SP- 30 days to decide ● May be dismissed if objected to in the defendant’s
RP- 90 days to decide answer.
● Non-compliance is not a jurisdictional defect that
2) If “SP”, use the fast-track rule warrants the dismissal of the Complaint (Aquino vs.
Aure)
Answer: should be filed within 10 DAYS
Regular: 30 days versus Summary: 10 DAYS PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
NO EXTENSION (Alconera vs. Judge Majaducon: The judge here complaint or information except on the ground of lack
was so lenient that he allowed the extension. He was held of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to
administratively liable for not following the Rule on Summary comply with the preceeding section;
Procedure.) 2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for a new trial, or for reconsideration of a
Preliminary Conference is mandatory. Non appearance is judgment, or for opening of trial;
excusable only when the party offers a justifiable cause for his 4. Petition for relief from judgment;
failure to attend. (Mauleon vs. Porter) 5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits
or any other paper;
In all motions for postponement, the court shall exercise sound 6. Memoranda;
judgment versus delay (Tugot vs. Coliflores) 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
MEDIATION 8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
These cases can also be mediated. 9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply
11. Third party complaints;
SUCCESSFUL NOT SUCCESSFUL
12. Interventions
Review terms/approval of Proceed with Preliminary
Compromise Agreement/ Conference COVERED BY REGULAR RULES
Judgment based on
agreement 1. Enforcement of Barangay Agreement (Vidal vs. Escueta)

Exceptions: covered by Small Claims

Time to Move for Correction of the Preliminary Conference If about money, its small claims, not Summary
Order: 10 DAYS(Bayubay vs. CA) Procedure.

Submission of Position Paper: 10 DAYS 2. Revival of Judgment

Clarificatory Procedure (Rural Bank of Malalag vs. Judge Maniwang) COMMON CASES GOVERNED BY SUMMARY PROCEDURE
10 DAYS: Submit Affidavits/Other Evidence 1. BP 22 Cases
15 DAYS: Court to render judgment 2. Ejectment Cases

Let’s go back to the example of Mia and Edren. They have Distinctions between Summary Procedure and Small Claims
submitted their respective position papers.

Can the judge conduct a clarificatory hearing in order to clarify SUMMARY PROCEDURE SMALL CLAIMS CASES
some matters? YES.
Collection

Rural Bank of Malalag vs. Judge Maniwang: Here, let’s say that More than 1M to 2M Does not exceed 1M
Edren failed to submit a position paper. The judge felt bad and
conducted a clarificatory hearing and Edren was allowed to Execution of Barangay Settlement for Money Claims
present evidence. The judge was held administratively liable. A
clarificatory procedure is only allowed when both parties submit More than 1M to 2M Does not exceed 1M
position papers. The penalty of Judge Maniwang was only a
What is filed?
reprimed. At this time, he was also the acting judge of Malalag. It
 Complaint or Answer Statement of Claim or
Response Issue: Whether or not the Court can treat an ejectment case
as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria (for the
Appearance of Attorney recovery of ownership).

Allowed NOT allowed Ruling: The Court cannot treat an ejectment case as an accion
EXN: when he/she is the publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. Petitioner argues that
plaintiff or defendant assuming this case should have been filed as an action
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, the Court should still
Promulgation of Decision resolve the case. However, the Court cannot simply take the
evidence presented before the MeTC in an ejectment case and
30 DAYS 24 HOURS decide it as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria for
these cases are different and not interchangeable.

MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC An action for forcible entry is distinct from accion publiciana.
CIVIL Cases: Forcible entry must be filed within one year after the unlawful
1. Procedure for Small Claims Cases dispossession while the latter must be filed a year after the
2. Summary Procedure unlawful dispossession of the real property. Former is
3. Regular Procedure concerned with the issue of the right to the physical
possession of the real property while the latter’s subject of
litigation is the better right to possession over the real
CRIMINAL Cases:
property. The former is filed in the municipal trial court and
1. Summary Procedure summary action, while the latter is plenary action in the RTC.
2. Regular Procedure
The cause of action in the ejectment case is different from
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The ejectment case
Cases under Rule on Summary Procedure: is brought before the proper inferior court to recover physical
possession only or possession de facto, not possession de
jure. MeTC’s ruling is only to resolve the issue of the
Fiorello R. Jose vs. Roberto Alfuero, et al. possession and therefore inconclusive.
G.R. No. 69380, November 26, 2012
MeTC resolves only possession de facto, ejectment cases are
Facts: The dispute involves a parcel of land registered in the summary in nature, while accion publiciana or accion
name of Rodolfo Chua Sing. Chua Sing purchased the land in reivindicatoria are plenary action. Hence petition is denied;
1991, he then leased the property to petitioner Fiorello Jose. CA’s decision dismissing the ejectment case was affirmed.
The Contract of Lease was neither notarized nor registered
with the Paranaque City Registry of Deeds. The purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer to be decided in summary proceedings is to provide
The Lease Contract provided that the lessor transfers all its for a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing
rights and prerogative to evict occupants in favor of lessee an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly taking
which shall be responsible for all the expenses that may be and continuing his possession during the long period it would
incurred without reimbursement from the lessor. take to properly resolve the issue of possession de jure or
ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and
There are however occupants already occupying the property order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived
even before the lease contract was executed. Soon after Chua of possession might take the law in his hands and seize the
Sing and petitioner signed the lease contract, petitioner property by force and violence. An ejectment case cannot be a
demanded in writing that the respondents vacate the property substitute for a full blown trial for the purpose of determining
within 30 days and that they pay monthly rental of P1,000.00 rights of possession or ownership.
until they fully vacate the property.
The court ruled that if they allow parties to file ejectment
Respondents refused to vacate and to pay rent. Petitioner cases and later consider them as an accion publiciana or
then filed an ejectment case against respondents before the accion reivindicatoria, then it would encourage parties to
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paranaque. When simply file ejectment cases instead of plenary actions. Courts
Petitioner brought the case to the Barangay for conciliation, would then decide in summary proceedings cases which the
the Barangay issued a Certification to File Action. Petitioner rules intend to be resolved through full-blown trials.
claimed that as lessee of the subject property, he had the right
to eject the respondents who unlawfully occupy the land. Because these “summary” proceedings will have to tackle
complicated issues requiring extensive proof, they would no
Court of Appeals ruled that the respondent’s possession of the longer be expeditious and would no longer serve the purpose
land was not by the petitioner or his lessor’s tolerance. Having for which they were created. Indeed, we cannot see how the
been in possession of the land for more than a year, the resulting congestion of cases, the hastily and incorrectly
respondents should not be evicted through an ejectment case. decided cases, and the utter lack of system would assist the
CA emphasized that ejectment cases are summary courts in protecting and preserving property right.
proceedings where the only issue to be resolved is who has a
better right to the physical possession of a property.
Discussion: It is very important to know if this is forcible entry or
Petitioner’s claim is of accion publiciana (for the recovery of
the possession), wherein he asserts his right as a possessor by unlawful detainer. When you study Rule 70 in special civil actions,
virtue of a contract of lease. CA dismissed the ejectment case. forcible entry and unlawful detainer, they have requisites which
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which CA denied. must be complied with. If those requisites are not complied with,
it may be an accion publiciana which is under the regular
procedure. Ejectment cases are common in summary procedure
Issue: Whether an action for unlawful detainer is the proper
which may include unlawful detainer and forcible entry. remedy.

When we say unlawful detainer, the defendant has a right to Ruling: In an unlawful detainer case, the possession of the
possess in the beginning and then that right was terminated by defendant is originally legal and permitted by the plaintiff out
virtue of a contract or end of contract. It may also be that we of the express contract between them. In the present case, the
possession was unlawful from the start because it was alleged
have mere tolerance. The owner merely tolerated the possession
by both parties that either of them has the to the land to the
of the defendant and then the owner came and wanted to use
exclusion of the other. Therefore an action for unlawful
the land. You have a right to be there in the past because you detainer is not the proper remedy.
were allowed and tolerated. But now the owner is here claiming
possession of the property. Your right now ceases.
EXPEDITED PROCEDURES

On the other hand, forcible entry is when you are in possession

Effect of Expedited Procedures to SMALL CLAIM CASES
of the property but then while having possession of the property
the defendant came and dispossessed you of the property and SMALL CLAIMS EFFECT of EP
you are claiming the property. You must claim it in order for it to
be called forcible entry under rule on summary procedure and it Threshold
must be claimed within one year from the time of dispossession.
Php 300,000 outside Metro Php 1,000,000 regardless of
If it exceeds one year, it is already accion publiciana.
Manila the area
Php 400,000 in Metro Manila
When the informal settlers are more than five years, you can no
longer file an action for forcible entry. What you file is an action Grounds
for recovery of possession or accion publiciana under the regular
procedure. Contract of Sale Contract of Sale of PERSONAL
Property

Republic vs. Espinosa Barangay Settlement

G.R. No. 186603, April 5, 2017
Must not be more than Php Must not be more than Php
Facts: Cadastral Decree was issued to Valentina Espinosa. It 300,000 outside Metro 1,000,000 to 2,000,000
covered a 28,880-square meter lot located at Negros Manila, and Php 400,000 in
Occidental. By virtue of the decree, Original Certificate of Title Metro Manila
was issued in the name ofEspinosa. Espinosa sold the
property to Leonila B. Caliston, who was later issued Transfer
Effect of Expedited Procedures to SUMMARY PROCEDURE CASES
Certificate of Title.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE EFFECT of EP
On January 13, 2003, the State, represented by the Regional
Executive Director of the DENR Iloilo City, through the OSG, Sum of Money
filed a Complaint for annulment of title and/or reversion of
land with the RTC. The State claimed that the property is None More than Php 1M but does
inalienable public land because it fell within a timberland area. not exceed Php 2M
The spouses Escarda intervened, alleging that they have been
occupying the property since 1976 on the belief that it belongs Damages
to the State. They prayed that Caliston be ordered to cease
and desist from ejecting them. Php 100,000 outside Metro Does not exceed Php 2M
Manila and Php 200,000 in
In answer, Caliston countered that the property is not Metro Manila
timberland. Invoking laches and prescription, she argued that
her title was issued earlier in 1962, while the map shows that Enforcement of Barangay Settlement on Money Claims
the property was classified only in 1986. Caliston also claimed
that the spouses Escarda lacked the capacity or personality to
None More than Php 1M to 2M
intervene because only the State may initiate an action for
reversion. She also alleged that the spouse Escarda cannot
Threshold of Penalty for Criminal Cases
claim a better right as against her because she merely
tolerated their occupancy of the property until their refusal to
6 MONTHS 1 YEAR because in our
vacate it. As counterclaim, Caliston claimed for moral and
Katarungang Pambarangay
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
Law, the coverage for
against the spouses Escarda for the baseless and malicious
barangay conciliation is 1M
complaint.
Remedy from Judgment on Appeal
It is admitted by the parties that Caliston filed an unlawful
detainer case against the spouses Escarda before the
Rule 42 Rule 42 does NOT apply. The
Municipal Trial Court of Sipalay Negros Occidental and which
judgment of the RTC on
was pending at the time the spouses intervened in the present
appeal shall be final,
case.
executory and unappealable.
 And that the LGC further provides that “the lupon of each
Rule 42: natalo ka sa MTC, pumunta ng RTC, natalo ka sa RTC.
barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable
settlement of all disputes,” this is still subject to certain
exceptions enumerated in the law.
Abagatnan v Sps. Clarito
GR. No.21196, April 7, 2017
EXCEPTIONS: where the dispute involves parties who actually
reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, unless
Facts: Wenceslao and his wife Lydia acquired a parcel of land
said barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
at Barangay Cogon, Roxas City from Mateo and Soteraña, by
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Lydia died, leaving her
appropriate lupon.
children to succeed into the ownership of her conjugal share
of said property. Sps. Jonathan and Elsa allegedly approached
Thus, parties who do not actually reside in the same city or
Wenceslao and asked for permission to construct a residential
municipality or adjoining barangays are not required to submit
house made of light materials on the subject property.
their dispute to the lupon as a precondition to the filing of a
Because Jonathan is a distant relative, Wenceslao allowed
complaint in court.
them to do so subject to the condition that they will vacate the
subject property should he need the same for his own use.
In the present case, the Complaint filed before the MTCC
The heirs of Lydia decided to sell portions of the said lot,
specifically alleged that not all the real parties in interest in the
including the subject property which was then still being
case actually reside in Roxas City: Jimmy resided in Poblacion,
occupied by Jonathan and Elsa.
Siniloan, Laguna, while Jenalyn resided in Brgy. de La Paz,
Pasig City. As such, the lupon has no jurisdiction over their
They offered to sell said portion to Jonathan and Elsa, but they
dispute, and prior referral of the case for barangay conciliation
declined. Consequently, heirs of Lydia sent them a Demand
is not a precondition to its filing in court.
Letter requiring them to vacate the subject property within
fifteen days from receipt of the letter. But they did not comply
This is true regardless of the fact that Jimmy and Jenalyn had
with the demand.
already authorized their sister and co-petitioner, Josephine, to
act as their attorney-in-fact in the ejectment proceedings
So, the heirs of Lydia filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
before the MTCC. As previously explained, the residence of the
and Damages against Jonathan and Elsa before the Municipal
attorney-in-fact of a real party in interest is irrelevant in so far
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Roxas City, where they
as the “actual residence” requirement under the LGC for prior
claimed to have been unlawfully deprived of the use and
barangay conciliation is concerned.
possession of a portion of their land. Notably, the Complaint
alleged that prior barangay conciliation proceedings are not
Besides, as the RTC correctly pointed out, the lack of barangay
required as a pre-condition for the filing of the case in court,
conciliation proceedings cannot be brought on appeal
given that not all petitioners are residents of Roxas City.
because it was not included in the Pre-Trial Order. In this case,
Specifically, Jimmy C. Abagatnan (Jimmy) resided in Laguna,
a cursory reading of the issues listed in the Pre-Trial Order
while Jenalyn A. De Leon (Jenalyn) resided in Pasig City. In their
easily shows that the parties never agreed, whether expressly
Answer with Counterclaim, Jonathan and Elsa argued that
or impliedly, to include the lack of prior barangay conciliation
prior barangay conciliation is a mandatory requirement that
proceedings in the list of issues to be resolved before the
cannot be dispensed with, considering that Jimmy and Jenalyn
MTCC. In effect, the non-inclusion of this issue in the Pre-Trial
had already executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in
Order barred its consideration during the trial. This is but
favor of their co petitioner and sister, Josephine A. Parce
consistent with the rule that parties are bound by the
(Josephine), who is a resident of Roxas City.
delimitation of issues that they agreed upon during the pre-
trial proceedings.
Issue: Whether there is a need to comply with the prior
barangay conciliation requirement under Section 412 of the
LGC, despite the fact that not all real parties in interest resided
in the same city or municipality.

Ruling: NO.

GENERAL RULE: Section 412(a) of the LGC requires the parties

to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman
or the Pangkat as a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint in
court, thus:

SECTION 412. Conciliation. - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of

Complaint in Court. No complaint, petition, action, or
proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the
lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other
government office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman
or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has
been reached as certified by the lupon or pangkat secretary
and attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman [or unless
the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.
Xxx]