7/25/2019 Tavgfora vs Velosohgyghghgfdfgdrgdrd

1/4

G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982

ATTY. VENUSTIAN T. TAVRA, petitioner,

vs.

!N. RSARI R. VELS, "# $er %&p&%"t' &( t$e )re("*"#+ *+e o /r%$

III o t$e "t' ort o "&, * ULIETA A)ATI, respondents.

)LANA, J.:

Venustiano T. Tavora, a resident of Marikina, Metro Manila, owns an apartment in

Quiapo, Manila which he has leased to Julieta Capati, a resident of Quiapo. On

account of alleged violations of the lease agreement b the lessee !unauthori"ed

subleasing and failure to pa rent#, the lessor filed on Januar $%, $&'$ ane(ectment suit !Civil Case )o. *+*'%'# in the Cit Court of Manila. The defendant

filed a motion t dismiss on the sole ground of lack of (urisdiction for failure of the

plaintiff to bring the dispute first to the baranga court for possible amicable

settlement under - $/*'. -arentheticall, there is no 0uestion that there has been

no attempt to amicabl settle the dispute between Tavora and Capati at the

baranga level.

1fter dening the motion to dismiss as well as a subse0uent motion for

reconsideration, the municipal court reversed itself and dismissed the e(ectment

case.

1lleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of (urisdiction, petitioner Tavora

has come to this Court on certiorari and mandamus praing that the order of

dismissal be set aside and that respondent (udge be ordered to hear and decide the

case.

The sole issue raised is one of law2 3nder the given facts, is the respondent (udge

barred from taking cogni"ance of the e(ectment case pursuant to 4ec5+ of - $/*'

establishing a sstem of amicabl settling disputes at the baranga level6 Thesection reads2

47CT8O) +. Conciliation, precondition to filing of complaint. 9 )o

complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving an matter within the

authority of the Lupon as provided in 4ection % hereof shall be filed or

instituted in court or an other government office for ad(udication unless

7/25/2019 Tavgfora vs Velosohgyghghgfdfgdrgdrd

2/4

there has been a confrontation of the parties before the :upon

Chairman or the -angkat and no conciliation or settlement has been

reached as certified b the :upon 4ecretar or the -angkat 4ecretar,

attested b the :upon or -angkat Chairman, or unless the settlement

has been repudiated ... !7mphasis supplied.#

;or the above provision to be operative, the controvers must be within the

jurisdictionof the :upong Tagapaapa !:upon or

7/25/2019 Tavgfora vs Velosohgyghghgfdfgdrgdrd

3/4

The :upon shall haveno authority over disputes2

!$# involvingparties who actually reside in barangays of different cities

or municipalities, e=cept where such barangas ad(oin each other? and

!%# involving real propert located in different municipalities. !7mphasis

supplied.#

The foregoing provisions are 0uite clear. 4ection % specifies the conditions under

which the :upon of a baranga Dshall have authoritD to bring together the disputants

for amicable settlement of their dispute2 The parties must be Dactuall residing in the

same cit or municipalit.D 1t the same time, 4ection @ 9 while reiterating that the

disputants must be Dactuall residing in the same barangayD or in Ddifferent

barangas within the same cit or municipalit 9 une0uivocabl declares that the

:upon shall have Dno authoritD over disputes Dinvolving parties who actuall residein barangas of different citiesor municipalities,D e=cept where such barangas

ad(oin each other.

Thus, b e=press statutor inclusion and e=clusion, the :upon shall have no

(urisdiction over disputes where the parties are not actual residents of the same cit

or municipalit, e=cept where the barangas in which the actuall reside ad(oin

each other,

8t is true that immediatel after specifing the baranga whose :upon shall take

cogni"ance of a given dispute, 4ec. @ of - $/*' adds2

owever, all disputes which involve real propert or an interest therein

shall be brought in the baranga where the real propert or an part

thereof is situated.

1ctuall, however, this added sentence is (ust an ordinarprovisoand should

operate as such. The operation of a proviso, as a rule, should be limited to its

normal function, which is to restrict or var the operation of the principal clause,

rather than e=pand its scope, in the absence of a clear indication to the contrar.

The natural and appropriate office of a proviso is . . . to e=cept

something from the enacting clause? to limit, restrict, or 0ualif the

statute in whole or in part? or to e=clude from the scope of the statute

that which otherwise would be within its terms. !E@ 1m Jur %d A+E.#

7/25/2019 Tavgfora vs Velosohgyghghgfdfgdrgdrd

4/4

Therefore, the 0uoted proviso should simpl be deemed to restrict or var the rule

on venueprescribed in the principal clauses of the first paragraph of 4ection @, thus2

1lthough venue is generall determined b the residence of the parties, disputes

involving real propert shall be brought in the baranga where the real propert or

an part thereof is situated, notwithstanding that the parties reside elsewhere within

the same citmunicipalit.

8n the instant case, the plaintiff in the e(ectment case !petitioner herein# is a resident

of Marikina, while the defendant !private respondent# is a resident of Quiapo. )o

:upon therefore is authori"ed to take cogni"ance of their dispute.

;inding the petition to be meritorious, the dismissal of Civil Case )o. *+*'%'

!e(ectment# b the respondent Judge being predicated upon a misconstruction of -

$/*', the same should be granted. !Co Tiamco vs. ia", E/ -hil. +E%.#

1ccordingl, the assailed order of dismissal dated ;ebruar %%, $&'% as well as the

order dated March %@, $&'% dening reconsideration thereof, are hereb set aside?

and the respondent Judge is directed to hear and decide the aforesaid e(ectment

case on its merits. Costs against private respondents.

4O OF7F7.

Fernando CJ., Teehankee, arredo, !akasiar, "#uino, Concepcion, Jr., $uerrero,

"bad %antos, &e Castro, !elencio'(errera, )scolin, *as#ue+ and $utierre+, JJ.,

concur.

elova, J., took no part.