Napoleon Gegare vs, CA & Armie Elma

Facts:

1. Napoleon Gegare and Armie Elma are disputing over Lot 5989 w/ an area of 270 sq. m. situated at Dadiangas, GenSan City registered under the name of Paulino Elma.

2. A reversion case was filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Elma in the CFI of South Cotabato w/c resulted to the nullification of the title of Elma & the lot reverted to the mass of public domain subject to disposition. Preferential right to its actual occupant, Napoleon Gegare, was given for its disposition.

3. Both Gegare and Elma filed an application for the WHOLE lot to the Board of Liquidators in 1975.

4. 1976 – Board passed a resolution disposing the lot in favor of petitioner Gegare by way of negotiated sale w/c respondent protested but another resolution was passed denying such protest.

5. Elma filed a Request for Reconsideration w/c was referred to Mr. Garlit (liquidator-designee) for verification & investigation of the lot. After the hearing, Mr. Garlit recommended the division of the lot to the parties upon finding out that the true actual occupant is not Gegare anymore but in fact Elma himself.

6. Aug 14, 1981, since the negoatiated sale in favor of Gegare in par3 is already perfected, the Board issued another Resolution approving Garlit’s recommendation & ordered for the division of the lot equally between Gegare & Elma at 135.5 sq. m. each disposed to them.

7. Elma paid the ½ of the lot & have it registered under his name while Gagere wanted the whole lot to be given to him.

8. Nov. 27, 1985 – Gegare filed an action for Annulment & Cancellation of the Partition of the Lot against respondent & the Board at the RTC of GENSAN

9. Respondent Elma asked for it to be dismissed on the ff. grounds:a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matterb. Petitioner has no capacity to suec. Petitioner is not a real-party-in-interestd. Action is barred by prior judgmente. Lack of Conciliation pursuant to PD 1508 (KPL)

Issue: W/N the case at bar is covered by the KPL?

Held: YES.

1. GENERAL RULE: Under Sec 2 of PD1508, when the government (represented by the Board of Lliquidators) is a party to a case, the case can be filed directly to the courts without having gone to the Katarungang Pambarangay.

EXCEPTION: Under Sec 6 of the same Decree, when the government PLUS another private party (in this case ELMA) are the respondents in a case, the case must be submitted first for amicable settlement in the Katarungang Pambarangay.

2. Other assignment of errors:a. Gegare said he was not sent summons – there were sent notices at the address

of the petitioner appearing in the petition at Liwayway Disco Restaurant & Disco Pub at GenSan & one of the resolutions sent was even contested by the petitioner w/c proved that petitioner received such summons, pleadings & resolutions

b. The appellate court erred in giving due course to the petition w/c are interlocutory in character – when the board passed its resolution in 1981, petitioner appealed to the OP but was denied & he did not file any petition for review w/c made said decision final & duly implemented and no longer interlocutory

c. Real party-in-interest === not the petitioner since he was not a party in the grant of the land by the gov’t to Elma w/c will not give him the right to ask for its nullification