HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS, SR.

, represented by their co-heirs and Attorneys-in-Fact

MERCEDES A. FAVIS and NELLY FAVIS-VILLAFUERTE, petitioners, vs. JUANA GONZALES, her son
MARIANO G. FAVIS, MA. THERESA JOANA D. FAVIS, JAMES MARK D. FAVIS, all minors
represented herein by their parents, SPS. MARIANO FAVIS and LARCELITA D. FAVIS,
respondents.

Date: Jan 15 2014

Ponente: J. Perez

Nature: Petition for Review of decision of CA

Facts

 Dr. Favis was married to Capitolina Aguilar and with 7 children, Purita, Reynaldo,
Consolacion, Mariano Jr, Esther, Mercedes, and Nelly
 When Capitolina died, Juana Gonzales became Doctor Favis’s common law wife and
had a son named another Mariano
 They then after got married and which he eventually acknowledged Mariano (not the
jr.) as his legitimate child in an affidavit
 Mariano is married to Larcelita which they made 4 children
 Dr Favis died intestate (kidney, parkinsons, pneumonia, heart failure, etc.) in 1995
leaving
o Parcel of land in Vigan and commercial building on it
o Parcel of residential land in Vigan with House on it with value of house of
17,600pesos
o Parcel of orchard land still in vigan
 Oct 16 1994 Dr. Favis allegedly executed deed of donation of parcel of land in vigan
with commercial buildings to the grand children of Juana (children of Mariano not the
Jr.)
 Children of Capitolina filed an action for annulment of the Deed of donation,
inventory, liquidation and partition of property before RTC Vigan as this has prejudiced
their legitime
 Answer of R
o Donated inter vivos so cannot be part of the estate so how can they be
prejudiced?
o They have no stake on the said properties
 RTC pretrial order
o Limited on the validity of the deed of donation
o WON Juana (second wife) and Mariano( NOT THE JR) are compulsory heirs of Dr
Favis
 RTC Decision
o Nullified deed of donation and cancelled tax declarations
 Died at 92 yrs old with so many illnesses no way he had full control over his
mental capacity (BECAUSE NO MORE OXYGEN GOING TO THE BRAIN SO
HE CANNOT THINK WITH FULL CAPACITY ANYMORE ACCDG TO JUDGE)
 BUT since there was valid second marriage, Mariano and Juana are
 compulsory heirs so equal shares sila with the others
 R appealed before CA challenging courts nullification on the the ground of vitiated
consent
 CA ordered dismissal of P’s nullification case but not on the grounds invoked by R
 CA motu propio ordered dismissal of complaint
o For failure of P to make an averment that earnest efforts toward compromise
has been made based on Art 151 of FC
 Justified its order by invoking its authority to review rulings of TC even if not
assigned as errors in the appeal
 P filed MR arguing that the case is not subject to compromise as it involves future
legitime
 CA rejected MR as CA said that it is not future legitime as the case was filed when Dr
Favis was already dead
 P filed before SC

Issue: WON appellate court may dismiss the order of dismissal of the complaint for failure to
allege therein that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made

Held

 CA committed egregrious error in dismissing the complaint under Art 151 of FC with
Rule 16 sec 1 par (j)

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 case
must be dismissed.

This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil
Code.

Rule 16 sec 1 j

Section 1. Grounds.—Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or
pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

xxxx

(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.

 Rule 16 lists down the grounds for motion to dismiss the complaint but must be
distinguished from Rule 9 sec 1

Rule 9 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.— Defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears
from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss
the claim.

 Under Rule 9 sec 1 only 4 instances when court may motu propio dismiss the claim
o Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
 o Litis pendentia
o Res judicata
o Prescription of action
 Rule 16 states that it must be raised “within the time but before filing the answer to the
complaint or pleading asserting a claim.”
o Failure to do this, Rule 9 sets in as considered waived
o Exceptions under rule 9 (the 4) is not applicable in this case
 AS APPLIED
o Condition precedent for filing a claim not been complied with is a ground for
MOTION TO DISMISS
 AFTER FILING AN ANSWER, IT HAS BEEN DEEMED WAIVED AND NOW BARRED
FOR FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE SAID GROUND
o In the case of Versosa
 An amended complaint cannot correct an original complaint which
states no cause of action
 Thus, even assuming that no conciliation happened in that case, is not a
jurisdictional defect
 In a case which cited Versosa, conciliation in the barangay level has the
same application that they are mere procedural imperfection which does
not affect the jurisdiction of the court = SO IT CAN BE WAIVED
o ALL THAT BEING SAID, COURT CANNOT MOTU PROPIO dismiss
 Assuming arguendo
o Conciliation not possible anyway based on the facts
o Incessant refusal of R to compromise
o R merely relied on the CA decision without answering the substantive spect of
the case

DISPOSITIVE: CA REVERSED