G.R. No. 83907. September 13, 1989.

NAPOLEON GEGARE, petitioner

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS (ELEVENTH DIVISION) AND ARMIE ELMA, respondents.

FACTS

The center of controversy is Lot 5989, Ts-217 with an area of about 270 square meters situated at
Dadiangas, General Santos City. This lot was titled in the name of Paulino Elma

. A reversion case was filed by the Republic, a decision was rendered on January 29, 1973 declaring the
title of Paulino Elma null and void and the same was ordered cancelled and giving preferential right to its
actual occupant, Napoleon Gegare.

Both petitioner and private respondent filed an application for this lot in the Board of Liquidators the Board
disposing of the lot in favor of petitioner by way of a negotiated sale. Private respondent protested against
the application of petitioner

the Board passed Resolution approving said recommendation by dividing the lot equally between the
parties at 135.5 square meters each to be disposed to them by negotiated sale

petitioner filed an action for "Annulment and Cancellation of Partition against private respondent and the
Board

private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) petitioner has no capacity to sue; (3) petitioner is not a real party-
in-interest; and (4) the action is barred by prior judgment. Private respondent added another ground
(5) lack of conciliation efforts pursuant to Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1508. The motion
was granted in an order dated March 18, 1986.

petitioner moved for a reconsideration, The motion for reconsideration was granted

Hence, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals questioning
the said orders of the trial court In due course, a decision was rendered by the appellate court on March
16, 1988 granting the petition, declaring the questioned orders null and void

ISSUE

THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE
DISMISSED CIVIL CASE NO. 3270 FOR FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF P.D. NO. 1508 BEFORE FILING HIS COMPLAINT IN COURT. – NO

HELD

The petition is devoid of any merit.

petitioner argues that it was erroneous for the appellate court to hold that the case should be dismissed
by the lower court for failure to comply with a provision of Presidential Decree No. 1508 before filing the
complaint. He alleges that this rule is not applicable in said case for one of the parties therein is the
government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof which is excepted from this requirement under
Section 2 of said law.

True it is that the Board is a government instrumentality but the petitioner and private respondent who are
also contending parties in the case are residents of the same barangay so Section 6 of Presidential
Decree No. 1508 should apply to them

The purpose of this confrontation is to enable the parties to settle their differences amicably. If the other
only contending party is the government or its instrumentality or subdivision the case falls within the
exception but when it is only one of the contending parties, a confrontation should still be undertaken
among the other parties.