GALUBA VS LAURETA

G.R. No. 71091          January 29, 1988

FACTS:

The issue in this petition for review on certiorari is whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to annul an amicable settlement arrived at by the parties through the mediation of the Lupong Tagapayapa, in the absence of a repudiation of said amicable settlement within the 10-day period provided for in Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1508.

RULING: 

Pursuant to P.D. 1508, Section 12, Rule VI of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules which were promulgated "for the amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level, without judicial recourse," also provides that "[f]ailure to repudiate the settlement or the arbitration agreement within the time limits respectively set [in Section 10 thereof], shall be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge on said grounds," i.e., fraud, violence or intimidation.

Any party, therefore, who fails to avail himself of the remedy set forth in Section 13 must face the consequences of the amicable settlement for he can no longer file an action in court to redress his grievances arising from said settlement. It should be emphasized that under Section 11 of said law, "[t]he amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of the ten [10] days from the date thereof unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition for nullification of the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court." 

Hence, the lower court correctly held that P.D. 1508 does not provide for a judicial procedure for the annulment of an amicable settlement because the remedy of repudiation supplants the remedy of a court annulment. An aggrieved party may only resort to a court action after he has repudiated the settlement in accordance with Section 13 as Section 6 clearly states that repudiation is a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint regarding any matter within the authority of the Lupong Tagapayapa. It should be clarified, however, that the "petition for nullification" mentioned in Section 11 refers to an arbitration award pursuant to Section 7 of the same law and not to an amicable settlement.

MANGUBAT VS VILLEGAS

G.R. No. L-28141               March 16, 1988

FACTS:

Valentina de la Paz authorized the herein respondent, Dominador Barredo, to occupy the said stall for her and even executed an affidavit in favor of Dominador Barredo, passing her right over said market stall to her grandson, Dominador Barredo. In the meantime, the Mayor's Office was asked to intervene in this case, and upon proper investigation, the Mayor decided that the herein petitioner could not qualify to occupy said stall because her daughter, unmarried, and living with petitioner, was already the registered holder of several market stalls in the same market. And under the provisions of Section 20 of the Market Code, the petitioner is disqualified to further apply for possession of another stall.

RULING: 

We agree with the court insofar as it denies the petitioner the right to succeed as stallholder following her mother's death. As found by the court, the petitioner was, at the time of the controversy, already a stallholder in the same market. She is, hence, disqualified from holding another stall whether by right of succession or pursuant to a bid. This is provided by Section 13 of the Market Code.

We however, reverse the court insofar as it sustains the private respondent's claim over the game stall. For clearly, the private respondent is not one of those granted the right to succeed a deceased stallholder.