### G.R. No.

211966
## Abagatnan v. Spouses Clarito
######

### Facts:
- Wenceslao Abagatnan and his late wife, Lydia Capote, acquired a parcel of land in
Roxas City from Mateo Ambrad and Soteraña Clarito.
- Lydia died in 1999, leaving her children as the successors of her conjugal share
of the property.
- Respondents, Jonathan Clarito and Elsa Clarito, allegedly approached Wenceslao
and asked for permission to construct a residential house on a portion of the land.
- In September 2006, petitioners decided to sell portions of the land, including
the portion occupied by respondents.
- Petitioners offered to sell the portion to respondents, but they declined.
- Petitioners sent a demand letter to respondents, asking them to vacate the
property, but respondents refused.
- Petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against
respondents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), claiming that prior
barangay conciliation proceedings were not required since not all petitioners were
residents of Roxas City.

### Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to
comply with the prior barangay conciliation requirement under the Local Government
Code (LGC), despite not all real parties in interest residing in the same city or
municipality.

### Ruling:
- The Petition is granted.

### Ratio:
- Section 412(a) of the LGC requires parties to undergo conciliation before the
Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a pre-condition to filing a complaint in court.
- The LGC provides that the lupon has authority to bring together parties residing
in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement, except in cases where the
parties reside in different cities or municipalities.
- The requirement of actual residency in the LGC pertains specifically to the real
parties in interest, not their attorney-in-fact.
- The lack of barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be brought on appeal if it
was not included in the Pre-Trial Order.
- Parties are bound by the issues agreed upon during the pre-trial proceedings.

### Summary:
The petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against the
respondents for refusing to vacate a portion of land owned by the petitioners. The
Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the prior
barangay conciliation requirement under the Local Government Code. However, the
Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the requirement of actual
residency in the LGC only applies to the real parties in interest, not their
attorney-in-fact. The lack of barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be raised on
appeal if it was not included in the Pre-Trial Order. Therefore, the complaint
should not have been dismissed, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court in
favor of the petitioners is reinstated.

------------------------------------------------------------------