FACTS:

The intestate estate of Borromeo is the owner of a building, which was being rented out to petitioner. On a relevant date, private respondent sent a letter to petitioner for the payment of overdue rentals as well as to vacate the premises  thereafter. The petitioner failed to pay. With less than a year from the demand letter, private respondent instituted action
against petitioner for unlawful detainer. Private respondent moves for the dismissal of the case for want of jurisdiction as she asserts that conciliation proceedings should have first been instituted with the Lupon Barangay.

HELD:

Even though the private respondent should have submitted the complaint before the Lupon, the petition should still be dismissed. The Lupon only refers to individuals—single human being contrasted with a social group or institution. It only applies to natural persons. In the case at bar, private respondent is only a nominal party in behalf of the intestate estate. The real party in interest is the intestate estate and thus, doesn't fall within the ambits of the provision requiring submission of the case to conciliation proceedings with the Lupon.