131.

Corpuz v CA
June 19, 1997
Romero, J.
Digest by Gabe
Topic and Provisions:
Short Version:
Corpuz filed an ejectment suit against Alvarado. The MTC ruled in his favor,
but the RTC reversed. Pertinently, Alvarado made a general averment that
the case had not been referred to the lupong pambarangay.
The SC, on that issue, ruled that a mere general averment is not a sufficient
allegation of failure to refer to the lupon. Thus, that defense was waived.
Facts:
Carlito Corpuz and Juanito Alvarado were two of the tenants of Lorenzo
Barredo, who decided to sell his property to the tenants. Due to economic
difficulties, Alvarado and the other lessees executed an "Affidavit of Waiver"
granting Barredo the right to sell his house to any person who can afford to
purchase the same. Consequently, Barredo sold his house to Corpuz
for P37,500.00. As a result of the sale, a tenancy relationship was
established between Corpuz and Alvarado.
Corpuz later sent a written notice to Alvarado demanding that he
vacate the room which he was occupying because the children of Corpuz
needed it for their own use. Alvarado refused.
This led Corpuz to file an action for unlawful detainer against
Alvarado with the MeTC of Manila, for recovery of possession of the room.
MTC ruled in favor of Corpuz, ordering Alvarado to vacate. RTC reversed,
on the ground that the purported sale between Corpuz and Barredo was the
subject of a controversy pending before the National Housing Authority
(NHA) which must be resolved first by said agency. It also concluded that
the "Affidavit of Waiver" executed by Alvarado and Barredo was a forgery.
CA affirmed. Hence this petition for review.
Petitioner Corpuz:

1. The ejectment suit should not be abated by the ejectment suit,

consistent with jurisprudence.
2. Alvarado failed to allege the failure to refer to the Lupon. Therefore,
that is a waiver of that defense.
Respondent Alvarado:
1. The Suit before the NHA suspends the ejectment suit.
2. The dispute was not referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa.
Issues:
1. WON Corpuz' unlawful detainer suit filed with the MTC should be
suspended until the resolution of the case lodged in the NHA
impugning the sale of said property. (No)
2. (topical)WON the case should be dismissed for failure to refer to
barangay conciliation.
Ratio:
1. The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases.Suits or
actions for the annulment of sale, title or document do not abate any
ejectment action respecting the same property.
The underlying reason is for the defendant not to trifle with the
ejectment suit, which is summary in nature, by the simple expedient of
asserting ownership thereon. Thus, the controversy pending before the
NHA for the annulment of the Deed of Sale and assailing the authenticity of
the "Affidavit of Joint Waiver" cannot deter the MTC from taking cognizance
of the ejectment suit merely for the purpose of determining who has a
better possessory right among the parties.
2. This defense was only stated in a single general short sentence in
Alvarado's answer. Failure of a party to specifically allege the fact
that there was no compliance with the Barangay conciliation
procedure constitutes a waiver of that defense. A perusal of
Alvarado's answer reveals that no reason or explanation was given to
support his allegation, which is deemed a mere general averment.
In any event, the proceeding outlined in P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional
requirement and non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction
which the lower court had already acquired over the subject matter and the
parties therein.

Petition granted. CA decision Reversed and Set Aside. MTC judgment

reinstated.