MICHAEL SEBASTIAN, PETITIONER, VS.

ANNABEL LAGMAY NG, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-

FACT, ANGELITA LAGMAY, RESPONDENT

GR NO. 164594 April 22, 2015

FACTS OF THE CASE:

When Michael (Sebastian) and Annable (Lagmay) were still sweethearts, Annabel sent the amount of
P350,000.00 as her share in their joint investmentfor the purchase of a truck. After their relationship
ended, however, Michael refused to return the money, hence Angelita, A

nnable’s mother, filed a co

mplaint belorethe Bangay Justice of Siclong, Laur, Nueva Ecija. The parties entered into an agreement,
evidenced by a document identified

as “kasunduan”, whereby Michaelagreed to pay the amount of P250,000.00 on different dates. When
the “kasunduan” was not honored by Michael, and alleging that the “kasunduan” was not

repudiated within 10 days, Angelita brought the matter back to the barangay, which failed to enforce
the judgment but issued a Certificate To File Action. One and ahalf year after the execution of the
Kasunduan, Angelita filed before the MCTC a Motion for Execution of the Kasunduan. Alleging violation
of Sec. 15, Rule 13 of theRules of Court, Michael moved for dismissal of the action, but the MCTC
decided against him, and rendered a decision in favour of Angelita. Michael appealed to theRegional
Trial Court, but the RTC initially affirmed the MCTC decision. In his motion for reconsideration, Michael
argued that an amicable settlement before thebarangay can be enforced by the Lupon within six
months, but after the lapse of six months it should be thru an ordinary civi action before the MTC or
MCTC, not amere motion for execution; he assails the lack of jurisdiction of the MCTC over the case as
the amount of the claim (P250,000.00) ex

ceeded the MCTC’s jurisdiction

(P200,000.00. The RTC granted his motion for reconsideration and set aside the MCTC decision for lack
of jurisdiction. Aggrieved, Angelita filed a petition forreview with the CA, which granted it, holding that
the MCTC/MTC

is the “appropriate trial court” referred to in Section 2, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of R.A.No.
7160 hence it has jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, regardless of the amount. Michael’s failure to
repudiate the “kasunduan” in accordance with

theImplementing Rules of RA 7160 rendered it final. Michael thus elevated the case.

Issue:

Whether or not the MCTC has the authority and jurisdiction to execute the Kasunduan regardless of
theamount involved.