Fact: In 2000, Alberto filed a complaint against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., his wife Remedios, the spouses Felipe and Maria Owe and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage contending that he did not secure any loan from petitioner, nor did he sign or execute any contract of mortgage in its favor; that his wife, acting in conspiracy with Hiyas and the spouses Owe, who were the ones that benefited from the loan, made it appear that he signed the contract of mortgage; that he could not have executed the said contract because he was then working abroad.
Hiyas filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Alberto failed to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code wherein it is provided that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed.
Alberto filed his comment, arguing that in cases where one of the parties is not a member of the same family as contemplated under Article 150 of the Family Code, failure to allege in the complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made by the plaintiff before filing the complaint is not a ground for a motion to dismiss.
Issue: Is there a need for an earnest effort toward a compromise in this case?
Held: Article 151 of the Family Code provides as follows:
No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
Article 222 of the Civil Code from which Article 151 of the Family Code was taken, essentially contains the same provisions, to wit:
No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035.
The Code Commission that drafted Article 222 of the Civil Code from which Article 151 of the Family Code was taken explains:
[I]t is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation between members of the same family. It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a compromise before a litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family. It is known that a lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers.
In Magbaleta, the case involved brothers and a stranger to the family, the alleged owner of the subject property. The Court, taking into consideration the explanation made by the Code Commision in its report, ruled that:
[T]hese considerations do not, however, weigh enough to make it imperative that such efforts to compromise should be a jurisdictional pre-requisite for the maintenance of an action whenever a stranger to the family is a party thereto, whether as a necessary or indispensable one. It is not always that one who is alien to the family would be willing to suffer the inconvenience of, much less relish, the delay and the complications that wranglings between or among relatives more often than not entail. Besides, it is neither practical nor fair that the determination of the rights of a stranger to the family who just happened to have innocently acquired some kind of interest in any right or property disputed among its members should be made to depend on the way the latter would settle their differences among themselves. x x x.
Hence, once a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving members of the same family, the law no longer makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper. (Hiyas Savings and Loans Banks, Inc. vs. Hon. Edmundo T. Acuña, G.R. No. 154132, August 31, 2006)
