Wainright v.

Versoza
G.R. No. L-25609
November 27, 1968
Sanchez
Recto
Margaret
Ann
Wainright
Versoza,
Jose
Ma.
Versoza
Jr.,
Charles
John
Versoza
and Virginia
petitioners
Felice Versoza
responden Jose Ma. Versoza

ts
summary Wife and 3 minor children filed for P1,500 monthly support, support in arrears,
damages and custody of children with petition for support pendente lite
against the husband. Husband claims that there was no earnest effort to
compromise, which must be included in the complaint.
GR: attempt to compromise and its failure need to be alleged in the complaint
E: Support cases
Since the present action also revolves on the right to future support and
because compromise on future support is prescribed, then that an attempt at
compromise of future support and failure thereof is not a condition precedent
to the filing of the present suit. It need not be alleged in the complaint.
Although the complaint herein seeks custody of minor children and damages
as well, the prime object is support.

facts of the case

Margaret Ann (wife) and their 3 minor children filed a complaint for P1,500 monthly support,
support in arrears, damages and custody of children with petition for support pendente lite
against Jose Ma. Versoza (husband). The husband abandoned the family without providing for
their support and maintains illicit relations with another woman.
The husband claims that the complaint is premature and/or it states no cause of action
because the complaint involves members of the same family and does not allege earnest efforts
toward a compromise. He argued that compliance with Article 222 CC 1 was a condition precedent
and should have been alleged in the complaint.
Lower court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on ground that there was no showing
that efforts have been exerted to settle the case amicably before suit started. 2 MRs were
denied.

issue

Whether or not the Civil Code requirement of attempt to reach a compromise and of its failure
need to be alleged in the complaint. General Rule: YES, Exception: In support cases
(Stated differently: Whether or not the requirement of attempt to reach a compromise and its
failure to be alleged in the complaint applies to support cases. NO.)

ratio

The requirement in Article 222 has been given more teeth by Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules
of Court, which states as ground for a motion to dismiss that "(t)he suit is between members of
the same family and no earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made."
In Article 222, "(n)o suit shall be filed or maintained" simply means that the attempt to
compromise and inability to arrive thereat is a condition precedent to the filing of the suit. As
such it is a part of plaintiffs' cause of action.

1 Article 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.
1

Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Judge Puno bolstered this view with their statement that "(t)he terms
of article 222 require express allegation of an attempt to compromise and its failure; otherwise
there is no cause of action stated."
An exception to the general rule is support. Support is everything that is indispensable for
sustenance. The right to support cannot be: (1) renounced; (2) transmitted to third persons; nor
(3) compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor. Compensation may not even be set up
against a creditor who has a claim for support due by gratuitous title. Support in arrears
however, may be compensated, renounced and transmitted by onerous or gratuitous title. In
Coral v Gallego, the right to support is not susceptible of future transactions under Art. 1814
OCC, which is reproduced in Art. 2035 NCC 2
Art. 2035 has deeper roots than Art. 222 because Art. 222 is only inserted as a new concept
in the NCC. For, even as Article 222 requires earnest efforts at a compromise and inability to
reach one as a condition precedent to the filing and maintenance of a suit "between the
members of the same family", that same article took good care to add: "subject to the limitations
in article 2035."
In this case, plaintiffs ask for support past, present and future, and for alimony
pendent lite. Since the present action also revolves on the right to future support and
because compromise on future support is prescribed, then that an attempt at
compromise of future support and failure thereof is not a condition precedent to the
filing of the present suit. It need not be alleged in the complaint. Although the
complaint herein seeks custody of minor children and damages as well, the prime
object is support.
Mendoza v CA applies. In that case, the wife filed in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija
an action for support against her husband who was then employed in a hospital in the United
States. Defendant moved to dismiss, for the reason that the complaint failed to state a cause of
action because it contained no allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been
made before the filing of the suit. Since no valid compromise is possible on the issue of future
support, a showing of previous efforts to compromise them would be superfluous.
The lower court should have allowed amendment of the complaint in order to complete the
cause of action.

2 Article
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:(1)The civil status of persons;
The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
Any ground for legal separation;
Future support;
The jurisdiction of courts;
Future legitime.