The requirement that there must be an allegation of a prior recourse to compromise in suits between members of the same family is applicable only to ordinary civil actions

The suit between immediate members of the family which requires an allegation of a prior recourse to compromise or settlement pertains to one which is adversarial or controversial in nature. The law, however, does not encompass a petition for the settlement of estate because such case is not a controversial or adversarial in character. It is merely intended to determine the heirs, their shares in the estate and to ensure that the estate is properly administered to prevent its dissipation. - Albano

Fact: Troadio Manalo died leaving several heirs and several real properties. After his death, eight (8) of his children filed a petition for the judicial settlement of his estate. Some of the heirs including his surviving spouse moved to dismiss the petition contending that there was failure to comply with a condition precedent due to the absence of an allegation of earnest efforts toward a compromise among members of the same family. The motion was denied.

Issue:  Is there a need for an earnest effort toward a compromise in this case?

Held: Concededly, the petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 contains certain averments which may be typical of an ordinary civil action. Herein petitioners, as oppositors therein, took advantage of the said defect in the petition and filed their so-called Opposition thereto which, as observed by the trial court, is actually an Answer containing admissions and denials, special and affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims for actual, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees and costs in an apparent effort to make out a case of an ordinary civil action and ultimately seek its dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the Rules of Court vis-à-vis, Article 222 of civil of the Civil Code.

It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that as irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition. It must be emphasized that the trial court, siting as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem. So it should be in the instant petition for settlement of estate.

Herein petitioners argue that even if the petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 were to be considered as a special proceeding for the settlement of estate of a deceased person, Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the Rules of Court vis-à-vis Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines would nevertheless apply as a ground for the dismissal of the same by virtue of ule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court which provides that the 'rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceedings.' Petitioners contend that the term "proceeding" is so broad that it must necessarily include special proceedings.

The argument is misplaced. Herein petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased Troadio Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough. To wit:

Art. 222. 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(underscoring supplied).

The above-quoted provision of the law is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term 'suit' that it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. A civil action is thus an action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Besides, an excerpt form the Report of the Code Commission unmistakably reveals the intention of the Code Commission to make that legal provision applicable only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the same family, thus:

It 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 litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family. It is know that lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than stranger.

It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of action as in fact no defendant was imploded therein. The Petition for issuance of letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek to establish the fact of death of their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court. (Guerrero vs RTC, G.R. No. 109068, January 10, 1994)

No need to exert efforts towards a compromise before filing a case if the parties are brothers-in-law

Fact: Gaudencio and Pedro are brothers-in-law. Pedro filed a case against Gaudencio without alleging that earnest efforts were resorted to settle the dispute before the case was filed. Hernando overlooked such fact and did not file a motion to dismiss, but during the pre-trial, the judge noticed their relationship, so, he gave five (5) days for Hernando to file amend his complaint. When Hernando failed to amend, the judge dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because of the absence of an allegation of previous efforts towards reconciliation. 

Issue:  Is there a need for an earnest effort toward a compromise in this case?

Held: No. It has been held in Gayon vs. Gayon, 36 SCRA 104, that the enumeration of brothers and sisters as members of the same family, does not comprehend brothers or sisters-in-law; hence, there is no need to exert efforts towards a compromise before filing the present case. (Guerrero vs RTC, G.R. No. 109068, January 10, 1994)

Note:

The dismissal by the trial court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was not proper because it should have been due to lack of a cause of action, or prematurity. The reason why it is improper is because, the failure to allege prior

recourse to settlement is not a jurisdictional requirement, but merely a condition precedent. It is the law that confers jurisdiction.

Article 151 of the Family Code may be invoked only by a party who is a member of that same family

Fact: Alberto filed a case against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., his wife Remedios, and 3 more defendants. 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. 

Issue:  May Hiyas invoke the provisions of Article 151 of the Family Code?

Held:  No. Since the requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is applicable only in cases which are exclusively between or among members of the same family, it necessarily follows that the same may be invoked only by a party who is a member of that same family. (Hiyas Savings and Loans Banks, Inc. vs. Hon. Edmundo T. Acuña, G.R. No. 154132, August 31, 2006)

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

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)

The enumeration of "brothers and sisters" as members of the same family does not comprehend "sisters-in-law

Fact: In 1967, Pedro Gayon is the brother of Silvestre Gayon whose wife is Genoveva Gayon. Pedro filed a case against against Silvetre and Genoveva for consolidation of ownership. Genoveva  alleged that her husband, Silvestre, died long before the institution of this case. She prayed that for the dismissal of the case because Pedro, being a brother of the deceased Silvestre, "did not exert efforts for the amicable settlement of the case" before filing his complaint. 

Issue:  Is there a need for an earnest effort toward a compromise in this case?

Held:  Art. 222 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This phrase, "members of the same family," should, however, be construed in the light of Art. 217 of the same Code, pursuant to which:

Family relations shall include those:

(1) Between husband and wife;

(2) Between parent and child;

(3) Among other ascendants and their descendants;

(4) Among brothers and sisters.

Genoveva is plaintiff's sister-in-law. "Sisters-in-law" are not listed under Art. 217 of the New Civil Code as members of the same family. Hence, the case does not come within the purview of Art. 222, and plaintiff's failure to seek a compromise before filing the complaint does not bar the same. (Gayon vs Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, November 26, 1970)

A paragraph must necessarily be construed in its entirety in order to properly derive the message sought to be conveyed

Fact: The amended complaint states: "Earnest efforts towards (sic) have been made but the same have failed."

Issue: Under Article 151 of the Family Code, a suit between members of the same family shall not be entertained, unless it is alleged in the complaint or petition that the disputants have made earnest efforts to resolve their differences through compromise, but these efforts have not succeeded. The attempt to compromise as well as its failure or inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit between members of the same family. Rule 8, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that conditions precedent may be generally averred in the pleadings. Is there a sufficient general averment of the condition precedent required by Art. 151 of the Family Code?

Held: It is true that the lead sentence of paragraph 9-A, which reads Earnest efforts towards have been made but the same have failed may be incomplete or even grammatically incorrect as there might be a missing word or phrase, but to our mind, a lacking word like compromise could be supplied by the rest of the paragraph. A paragraph is a distinct section or subdivision of a written or printed composition that consists of from one to many sentences, forms a rhetorical unit (as by dealing with a particular point of the subject or by comprising the words of a distinct speaker). As a short composition consisting of a group of sentences dealing with a single topic, a paragraph must necessarily be construed in its entirety in order to properly derive the message sought to be conveyed. In the instant case, paragraph 9-A of the Amended Complaint deals with the topic of efforts made by the respondent to reach a compromise between the parties. Hence, it is in this light that the defective lead sentence must be understood or construed. Contrary to what petitioners claim, there is no need for guesswork or complicated deductions in order to derive the point sought to be made by respondent in paragraph 9-A of the Amended Complaint, that earnest efforts to compromise the differences between the disputants were made but to no avail. The petitioners stance that the defective sentence in paragraph 9-A of the Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action, thus, has no leg to stand on. Having examined the Amended Complaint in its entirety as well as the documents attached thereto, following the rule that documents attached to a pleading are considered both as evidence and as part of the pleading, we find that the respondent has properly set out her cause of action. (Wee vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394. August 11, 2004)