Persons Digests Part 11 Page No.

Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of CA. 1967. Facts: Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza was married to Cecilio Mendoza in Sept 1953. They lived together as H&W until H Cecilio left for further studies in the US in July 1954. Since then, H w/o justifiable cause or reason deliberately abandoned and neglected her despite repeated demands. Moreover, he has failed and refused to provide for her maintenance and support. She is alleged to be pregnant, sickly and w/o any source of revenue while H is now employed in a US hospital earning USD200/mo on the average. He is also a part-owner of lands in Muoz, Nueva Ecija, assessed at around PhP32k in 1955. Cecilio moves for the dismissal of Ws complaint putting in issue the validity of the marriage and that such complaint contained no allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made before the filing of the suit as per Art 222 CC w/c provides: 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 Art 2035. CFI & CA dismissed the case. H now resorts to the Court. Cecilio asks for a showing that efforts in question were made for such is a condition precedent to the existence of the cause of action. He holds that failure of the complaint to plead that he previously tried in earnest to reach a settlement out of court renders it assailable for lack of cause of action and it may be so attacked at any stage of the case even on appeal. Issue: WON compromise between the sps may be made re support and validity of marriage

Mendoza v. CA

Held: No, the case involves a claim for future support under Art 2035 CC and cannot

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 2

be subject of a valid compromise. It is therefore outside the sphere of application Art 222 upon w/c petitioner relies. In attacking the validity of the marriage, H Cecilio seeks a noncompromisable issue. Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues, a showing of previous efforts to compromise them would be needless. Decision re dismissal of case affirmed.

of land. Decision in favor of respondents & against petitioners. Respondents counterclaim likewise dismissed. Became final & executory. Dec. 1969: respondents filed in CFI Cebu action for recovery of possession& ownership of one of the parcels of land litigated in first case against petitioners. Turns out that although judgment in first case awarded properties in question to respondents, the dispositive portion of the decision failed to state that herein petitioners should vacate premises in favor of respondents. Thus respondents had to file another case. Petitioners: contested action claiming former decision has been final & executory. CFI decision: in favor of Zoila et al. (then plaintiffs) & against Maximo et al. (defendants). Portion of land in dispute w/c defendants are occupying is awarded to plaintiffs & defendants are ordered to vacate & deliver land to plaintiffs. Issues & Ratio: 1. WON decision in first case denied respondents claim of ownership. - NO Clear that private respondents were declared owners of land in ques. CFI rightfully dismissed petition. Documentary evidence in support of defendants testimonial evidence show that respondents are owners. They had documentary exhibits consisting of tax declarations & official tax receipts which speak better than the best oral testimony a witness is capable of making. Dismissal of counterclaim of respondents cannot affect their rts on 2parcels of land in ques because it only referred to moral damages, rentals & attorneys fees. Respondents are the owners & thus they have a rt to possession of land & rt

Mendez vs. Eugenia

[Oct. 28, 1977] Petition for review judgment of CFI Cebu of summary

Petitioners: Zoila & Rafael Mendez and Matilde Bionson Respondents: Maximo, Eugenia, Juana, Fortunata, Prudencia, Roman, Anecita & Maria Bionson; and Hon. Alfredo Laya, CFI Cebu Br. 12 Facts: Oct. 8, 1968: Zoila & Matilde plus 10 others (Ill refer to them as petitioners) filed action against present respondents for partition of 2 parcels of land located in Oslob, Cebu. Plaintiffs prayed that Zoila, Paula Benigna, Pedro, Felisa, Amos, Toribia & Macario (all Bionson except Zoila) be declared as rightful owners of 1/3 of each parcel of land & Matilde, Marina, Ponciano & Leon(all Bionson) as lawful owners of 1/3 of each of said properties. They likewise prayed for physical partition of parcels into 3 equal parts & each part be assigned to specific declared owners. Respondents claim they are absolute & exclusive owners. Petitioners have no cause of action. They asked for moral damages & for agreed monthly rental& rental in arrears. (Petitioners were actually occupying some of lands in dispute). CFI: case dismissed for failure of petitioners to prove claim on 2 parcels

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 3

of action against holder & possessor of such in order to recover land. 2. WON respondents should exert earnest efforts to settle 2nd case amicably. NO Lack of such wont lead to dismissal of case since its merely a consequence of 1st case. 3. WON parties are members of same family. - NO CC Art. 217 provides that only the ff are family relations: a. bet husband & wife b. bet parent & child c. among other ascendants & their descendants d. among bros & sis Parties are collateral relatives who are not bros. & sisters. Held: CFI decision affirmed w/costs against petitioners.

the grounds of this alleged defect in his answer. Respondent judge gave Guerrero 5 days to file his motion and amended complaint with the jurisdictional defect being fixed. Guerrero moved to reconsider claiming that since brothers by affinity are no members of the same family, he was not required to exert effort toward a compromise. Furthermore, Hernando was precluded from raising this issue since he did not file a motion to dismiss nor assert the same as an affirmative defense in his answer. Judge Bello denied MFR and warned that the case will be dismissed if the amendment he sought was not complied with. Guerrero failed to comply and thus the case was dismissed hence this petition. Issues: 1.WON bros by affinity are considered members of the same family contemplated in Art. 217(4) & Art. 222, New CC, as well as under Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, ROC, requiring earnest efforts towards a compromise before a suit between them may be instituted and maintained NO. Considering that Art. 151, FC starts with the negative word No, the requirement there is mandatory (Fule v. CA). That requirement is further complemented by Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, ROC which provides as ground for a motion to dismiss (t)hat the suit is between members of the same family and no earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made. Reason for this requirement: This rule is introduced because 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 a litigation is allowed to breed hate and

GUERRERO v. RTC
229 SCRA 274 (1994) Facts: This is a petition for review of the orders of the RTC of Ilocos Norte, made by respondent judge Bello, Jr. Gaudencio Guerrero filed a complaint seeking to recover from his brother-inlaw Pedro Hernando a lot in Sarrat Cadastre, Ilocos Norte with damages. At the pre-trial conference, Judge Bello noted that being bros-in-law, it had to appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been exerted and that the same failed, as provided in Art. 151 and Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, ROC. Guerreros complaint did not allege such, nor did Hernando file any motion to dismiss nor attach the complaint on

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 4

passion in the family. It is known that a lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers x x x A litigation in a family is to be lamented far more than a lawsuit between strangers. But Art. 151 and the ROC rule cannot be applied precisely because the enumeration of brothers and sisters as member of the same family does not comprehend sisters-in-law nor brothers-in-law as held in the case Gayon v. Gayon. Such relationship is not listed under Art. 217 of the New Civil Code as members of the same family. Art. 150 of the Family Code repeats essentially the same enumeration of members of the family. 2.WON absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted which efforts failed, is aground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction NO. The attempt to compromise as well as the inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit between members of the same family, the absence of such allegation in the complaint being assailable at any stage of the proceeding, even on appeal, for lack of cause of action. However, the Court stated that the case is not dismissed for failure of petitioner to comply with the courts order to amend his complaint, as proposed by Hernando. Since assailed orders do not find support in our jurisprudence but, on the other hand, are based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the law, petitioner could not be bound to comply with them. Held: Petition granted. Appealed orders set aside. RTC ordered to continue with civil case with deliberate dispatch

Hontiveros vs. RTC

Br. 25, Iloilo City [June 29, 1999] Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo Facts: December 3, 1990 spouses Agusto and Maria Hontiveros (petitioners), filed a complaint for damages against Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson. Petitioners alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land, in the town of Jamindan, Province of Capiz by OCT No. 0-2124, issued pursuant to the decision of the Intermediate Appelate Court which modified the decision of the CoFI of Capiz, in a land registration case filed by Gregorio Hontiveros. Petitioners were denied of income from the land as a result of the filing of the land registration case. Rentals lost: 1968-1987 66,000 per year; 595,000per year after 1987. Answer filed by the respondent denied that they were married and it also alleged the Gregorio Hontiveros was a widower and Ayson was single. They alleged that the possession of the property in question had already been transferred to the petitioners on August 7, 1985 by virtue of a writ of possession dated July 18, 1985. Since then, the petitioners have been receiving rentals from the tenants of the land. The answer also alleged that the complaint failed to state a cause action since it did not allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise had been made, considering that the Agusto and Gregorio are brothers. Respondent also contends that the petitioners claim for damages was barred by prescription with respect to claims before 1984, that there were no rentals due since Gregorio was a possessor in good faith and for value; and that Ayson had nothing to do with

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 5

the case as she was not married to Gregorio and did not have any proprietary interest in the subject property. May 16, 1991 petitioners filed an amended complaint to insert therein the allegation that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made between the parties but the same were unsuccessful. Answer of the respondent: denied the earnest effort that had been made to reach a compromise agreement but the parties were unsuccessful. July 19, 1995 petitioners moved for a judgement on the pleadings on the ground that Gregorios answer did not tender an issue or that it otherwise admitted the material allegations of the complaint. November 23, 1995 trial court denied petitioners motion and dismissed the case on the ground that the complaint was not verified as required by article 51 of the FC. Art. 151. 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 same case must be dismissed. This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code. (222a) Issues: 1.WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on the case 2.WON after denying petitioners motion for judgement on the pleadings, the trial court could dismiss their complaint motu proprio for failure to comply with Art. 151 of the Family Code. 3.WON Article 151 of the Family Code applies in this case.

Ratio: 1.Yes. Petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Supreme Court is vested with the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgements and orders of lower court in all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. When the appeal would involve purely questions of law or any of the other cases specified in Article X of the Constitution, it should be taken to the SC by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court. 2. No Baja vs. Macandong court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the plaintiffs right to be heard, except in the following instances: o Plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial o Fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time o He fails to comply with rules or any order of the court o Court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. None of these exceptions appears in this case The trial court found that judgement on the pleadings in inappropriate not only for the fact that respondent in their answer specifically denied the claim of damages against them, but also because of the rule that the party claiming damages must satisfactorily prove the amount thereof TRIAL MUST BE HELD It is improper for the judge to render judgement based on the pleadings

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 6

alone. Factual resolved: o

issues

have

to

be

Aysons participation and/or liability if any Nature, extent and duration of Gregorios possession of the subject property

Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not verified for which reason the trial court could not believe the veracity of the allegation. Absence of verification required by Art. 151 does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct. The court could have ordered the petitioners to verify them. 3. No Art 151 does not apply because the suit is not exclusively among family members. Ayson is a stranger to the Hontiveros family. The phrase members of the same family refers to husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sister whether full or half blood. Guerrero v. RTC brothers and sisters does not comprehend sisters-in-law Ayson and Maria Hontiveros are considered strangers to the Hontiveros family for purposes of Article 151.

In Jan 1988, CA held that Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay jointly and severally are liable to the Salinas and Culan-Culan sps by way of compensating for the death and damages to the victims. Consequently, in July 1988, the sheriff levied on a 600 sq meter parcel of residential and located in Davao del Sur registered in the name of Jose Modequillo and a 3hectare parcel of agril land also in the name of Modequillo.A motion to quash/set aside the levy of execution was filed by Modequillo alleging that the 1st parcel of land is where the family home is built since 1969 and such is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Art 153 & 153 FC. As to the agril land, it is alleged to be still part of the public land. Issue: WON the Modequillos family home is exempt from execution Held: No, for the debt or liability was incurred at the time of the vehicular accident on March 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising there from was rendered by the appellate court on Jan 29, 1988. Both preceded the effectivity of the FC on Aug 3,1988. This case does not fall under the exemptions from execution under FC. As to the agril land, the sheriff shall levy on whatever rights the petitioner may have on the land. Petition dismissed. Notes: Under FC, a family home is deemed constituted on a H&L from the time it is occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extra-judicially as required in the CC. If the family actually resides in the premises, it is, therefore, a family home as contemplated by law. Thus the creditors should take the necessary precautions to protect their interest before extending credit to the sps or head of the family who owns the home.

Modequillo v. Breva
Petition to review the decision of CA. 1990. Facts:

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 7

Patricio vs Dario
G.R. No. 170829 Topic: Family Home The family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories that last during one's lifetime Facts: Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G. Patricio and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. He left a residential house and a preschool building situated at Cubao, Quezon City. Petitioner, Marcelino Marc and private respondent, extra judicially settled the estate of Marcelino V. Dario. Petitioner and Marcelino Marc formally advised private respondent of their intention to partition the subject property and terminate the coownership. o Private responded refused to partition the property. Petitioner and Marcelino Marc filed an action for partition before RTC Quezon City

minor beneficiary thereof. The heirs could not partition the property unless the court found compelling reasons to rule otherwise. [Son of the private respondent was a minor beneficiary of the family home] Issue: Whether partition of the family home is proper where one of the co-owners refuse to accede to such partition on the ground that a minor beneficiary still resides in the said home.

Held: Petition granted as the minor son does not satisfy all the requisites to be considered as a beneficiary of the family home.

Veneracion Mancilla

v.

Facts: Wife secured a loan and mortgaged residential lot. The title states that she was single; children are claiming that the residential property is their family home Held: Petitioners are required to allege with particularity in their petition the facts and the law relied upon for annulment as well as those supporting their cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Such requirement, as well as the requirement for the petitioners to attach to the original copy of their petition the affidavits of their witnesses and documents supporting their cause of action or defense, are designed to convince the appellate court of the substantive merit of their petition to avoid its outright dismissal; or for the CA to make a finding of a prima facie merit in their petition and give due course thereto and order the service of

Trial court ordered the partition of the property. o Private respondents motion for reconsideration denied.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals denied:

o Upon

motion for reconsideration, CA dismissed the petitioners motion for partition.

It held that family home should continue despite the death of one or both spouses as long as there is a

Persons Digests Part 11 Page No. 8

the petition and summons on the respondents. Unless petitioners append to their petition the appropriate documents, the appellate court might dismiss the petition outright or deny due course to the petition.

case since only Auther is a party to the Pasig RTC case. Wife and children are strangers to that case involving the sheriff selling on execution the alleged family home. Case remanded to RTC to determine W/N property is family home (must concur with requisites in FC)

Arriola v. Arriola
Facts: Decedents child from first marriage filed for partition of properties of decedent against children from second marriage. Held: Subject house was built by the decedent on his exclusive property. Said house has been the residence of petitioners [2nd family]for 20 years. House is therefore the family home. This being so, it is shielded from partition under Article 159 of FC [family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons there for.] The family home cannot be partitioned this time, even if it has passed to the coownership of the heirs, parties herein.

Albino Josef v. Santos

Facts: Petitioner failed to pay respondent for shoe materials he brought on credit. Petitioner contends that one of the properties is the family home and thus exempted from execution. Held: Petitioner is meritorious; writ of execution void. CA should have earnestly determined petitioners allegation that property is family home. The family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases.

Spouses Kelly v. Planters Product Inc.

Facts: Petitioner Auther G. Kelley, Jr. acquired agricultural chemical products on consignment from respondent PPI in 1989. Due to Auther's failure to pay despite demand, PPI filed action for sum of money and won. Sheriff sold a property of Kelley spouses to pay for the amount. Held: Nueva Vizcaya RTC has jurisdiction over