Spouses Augusto and Maria Hontiveros v RTC Ilo Ilo and Spouses Gregorio
Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson (Mendoza, 1999)
Summary – Augusto and Gregorio Hontiveros are siblings. Petitioners filed a
complaint for damages against respondents because the latter allegedly filed a land
registration case (where petitioners won) and withheld possession of the parcel of
land in Jamidan, Province of Capiz in bad faith.
Ruling
FACTS
Petitioners filed complaint for damages against private respondents before RTC
Iloilo City. Petitioners owned a parcel of land in Jamidan, Province of Capiz
pursuant to an OCT and a decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which
modified the decision of the CFI in a land registration case filed by Gregorio
Hontiveros. Petitioners averred that they were deprived of income from the land
because of the land registration case. The income consisted of rentals from tenants of
the land in the amount of P 66k from 1968 to 1987 and P 595k per year. Petitioners
also averred that respondents filed the land registration case and withheld possession
of the land in bad faith.
In their answer, private respondents denied that they were married and that Teodora
Ayson was single.
In their Amended Complaint, petitioners said that “earnest efforts towards a
compromise have been made between the parties but the same were unsuccessful.
Private respondents then filed an Answer to Amended Complaint and denied that
such earnest efforts were not made.
Petitioners then moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that private
respondents did not tender and issue and otherwise admitted the material allegations
of the complaint. Private respondent said that they denied petitioner’s claims and
thus tendered issues of fact which could be resolved after trial.
RTC denied petitioner’s motion and 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.
Plaintiffs argued that even if no such earnest efforts were made, Magbaleta et al v
Ganong applies. RTC ruled that it was not applicable because Teodora Ayson was not
a member of the Hontiveros Family. She was also shown to not have acquired any
proprietary right or interest in the land that was litigated by Gregorio and Augsuto
unlike in the Magbaleta case wherein a stranger to the family acquired certain right.
The appellate court also made no mention of the name of Ms. Ayson as part-awardee
of Lot 37 and that Gregorio was described as a widower.
Petitioner’s MR was dismissed. Thus the petitioner for review on certiorari before
the SC.
ISSUES
WON the RTC may dismiss the complaint motu proprio for failure to complay
with ART 151 of FC which provides that no suit between family members shall
prosper unless it appears from the complaint, which must be verified, that
earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made - NO
Does Art 151 apply? (important part)
The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does 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. 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. As this Court has already ruled, the court may
simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served. Otherwise,
mere suspicion or doubt on the part of the trial court as to the truth of the allegation
that earnest efforts had been made toward a compromise but the parties' efforts
proved unsuccessful is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only if it is later
shown that such efforts had not really been exerted would the court be justified in
dismissing the action. Thus, Art. 151 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.
Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family Code does not apply in this
case since the suit is not exclusively among the family members. Citing several cases
decided by this Court, petitioners claim that whenever a stranger is a party in the
case involving the family members, the requisite showing the earnest efforts to
compromise is no longer mandatory. They argue that since private respondent
Ayson is admittedly a stranger to the Hontiveros family, the case is not covered by
the requirements of Art. 151 of the Family 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 this Court held in Guerrero v.
RTC, Ilocos Norte, Br. XVI: 20
As early as two decades ago, we already ruled in Gayon v. Gayon that the
enumeration of "brothers and sisters" as member of the same family does not
comprehend "sisters-in-law." In that case, then Chief Justice Concepcion emphasized
that "sisters-in-law" (hence, also "brother-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.
Under the rules, if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed,
the trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed
by a party. When there are actual issues raised in the answer, such as one involving
damages, which require the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the
trial court, it is improper for the judge to render judgment based on the pleadings
alone. In this case, aside from the amount of damages, the following factual issues
have to be resolved, namely, (1) private respondent Teodora Ayson's participation
and/or liability, if any to petitioners and (2) the nature, extent, and duration of private
respondents' possession of the subject property. The trial court, therefore, correctly
denied petitioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Order, dated November 23, 1995
of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25 is SET ASIDE and the case is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

On motu proprio dismissal – should not have been dismissed motu proprio

There are instances when the trial court may order the dismissal of the case even
without a motion to that effect filed by any of the parties. In Baja v. Macandog, this
Court mentioned these cases, to wit: “The court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio
without violating the plaintiff's right to be heard, except in the following instances: if
the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial; if he fails to prosecute his action
for unreasonable length of time; or if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of
the court; or if the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit.”

However, none of these exceptions appears in this case.

Moreover, the trial court itself found that "judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate
not only for the fact that [private respondents] 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. . . . " Necessarily, a
trial must be held.

Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. — Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or

otherwise admits the material allegation of the adverse party's pleadings, the court
may, on motion of the party, direct judgment on such pleading. But in actions for
annulment of marriage or for legal separation the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved.