SPOUSES AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS and MARIA HONTIVEROS, petitioners, vs.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch

25, Iloilo City and SPOUSES GREGORIO HONTIVEROS and TEODORA AYSON, respondents.
29 June 1999 | Mendoza, J.
SUMMARY: Petitioner spouses herein filed a complaint for damages against herein private respondents. In their
complaint, petitioners alleged that being the owners of a parcel of land they were deprived of the income therefrom as a
result of the filing of the land registration case by the private respondents and withheld in bad faith possession of the land
from petitioners. Private respondents, however, denied the allegations and claimed that possession of the property in
question had already been transferred to petitioners. Petitioners moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the ground
that private respondents answer did not tender an issue or that it otherwise admitted the material allegations of the
complaint. The trial court denied the motion. At the same time, the court dismissed the case on the ground that the
complaint was not verified as required by Art. 151 of the Family Code and, therefore, it did not believe that earnest efforts
had been made to arrive at a compromise. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, but their
motion was denied. Hence this petition. The Supreme Court ruled that the inclusion of private respondent Teodora Ayson
as defendant and petitioner Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff took the case out of the ambit of Art. 151 of the Family
Code. Under this provision, the phrase members of the same family refers to husband and wife, parents and children,
ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood. Private respondent Ayson, being the
spouse of respondent Hontiveros, and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, being the spouse of petitioner Augusto Hontiveros, are
considered strangers to the Hontiveros family, for purposes of Art. 151. The absence of verification required in Art. 151
do not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint. The verification is merely a formal
requirement intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct. Hence, this petition
was granted and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
FACTS: P spouses Agusto & Maria Hontiveros filed a complaint for damages against R Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora
Ayson, alleging that, as owners of a parcel of land in Jamindan, Capiz, they were deprived of income (consisting of rentals
from tenants amounting to P66,000 per year from 1986-87, and P595,000 per year thereafter) from the land as a result of
the filing of the land registration by Gregorio Hontiveros, and that they were withheld possession of the land in bad faith.
In their answer, R denied that they were married and alleged that R Hontiveros was a widower while R Ayson was single,
and that they deprived P of possession of the land. They alleged that the property in question had already been
transferred to petitioners by virtue of a writ of possession issued by the clerk of court of the RTC of Capiz, Mambusao.
They also alleged that the complaint failed to state a cause of action since it did not allege that earnest efforts
towards a compromise had been made, considering that P Augusto Hontveros and R Gregorio Hontiveros are brothers.
They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and for an order against P to pay damages by way of counterclaim, as well
as reconveyance of the subject land to private respondents.
P filed an Amended Complaint to insert an allegation that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made
between the parties but the same were unsuccessful, which R denied. P moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the
ground that Rs answer did not tender an issue or that it otherwise admitted the material allegations of the complaint. R
opposed the motion alleging that they had denied Ps claims and thus tendered certain issues of fact which could only be
resolved after trial.
TC: Denied Ps motion and dismissed case on the ground that, although it alleged that earnest efforts had been made
toward the settlement of the case but they proved futile, the complaint was not verified for which reason the trial court
could not believe the veracity of the allegation.
Petition for review under Rule 45 filed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint on the ground that the complaint was not verified as
required by FC 151
RULING: Yes. 1) The absence of the verification required in FC 151 does not jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter of the complaint. It is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged
are true & correct. If the court doubted the veracity of the allegations regarding efforts made to settle the case among
members of the same family, it could simply have ordered petitioners to verify them.
2) Art. 151 is not applicable in this case since the suit is not exclusively among family members. The inclusion of R Ayson
as defendant and P Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff takes the case out of the ambit of FC 151, which provides:
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. It if 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.
Under this provision, the phrase members of the same family refers to the husband and wife, parents and children,
ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood. As the Court held in Guerrero v. RTC:
As early as two decades ago, we already ruled in Gayon v. Gayon that the enumeration of brothers and sisters
as members of the same family does not comprehend sisters-in-law. In that case, then Chief Justice
Concepcion emphasized that sisters-in-law (hence, also brothers-in-law) are not listed under Art. 217 of the
New Civil Code as members of the same family. Since Art. 150 of the Family Code repeats essentially the same
enumeration of members of the family, we find no reason to alter existing jurisprudence on the
mater. Consequently, the court a quo erred in ruling that petitioner Guerrero, being a brother-in-law of private
respondent Hernando, was required to exert earnest efforts towards a compromise before filing the present suit.
Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given any legal effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, private
respondent Ayson, who is described in the complaint as the spouse of respondent Hontiveros, and petitioner Maria
Hontiveros, who is admittedly the spouse of petitioner Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers to the Hontiveros
family, for purposes of Art. 151.