Hiyas Savings v.

Acuña
G.R. No. 154132 | Aug. 31, 2006 | Austria-Martinez, J.
Effects of Family Relationship on Legal Disputes | Bea
Case Summary: Respondent Alberto Moreno filed complaint against Petitioners Hiyas Loans & Savings Bank, his wife
Remedios, and the Owe spouses for allegedly conspiring in the issuance and cancellation of mortgage. Petitioners filed
a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Moreno had not made earnest efforts to compromise as required by FC. Art.
151. Moreno claimed that this was not necessary since the 3 other petitioners were strangers, and the RTC ruled in
Moreno’s favor. Petitioners filed for certiorari claiming the RTC erred in its ruling, but the Supreme Court ruled that the
requirement for efforts to compromise only applied to family members, and it thus follows that only family members, not
strangers, can invoke this.

Facts: (Petitioners: Hiyas, Remedios Moreno, spouses Felipe & Maria Owe; Public & Private Respondent: RTC Judge
Acuña & Alberto Moreno, respectively)


1. RESPONDENT ALBERTO MORENO ALLEGED CONSPIRACY OF PETITIONERS HIYAS SAVINGS, WIFE

REMEDIOS, ETC. FOR THE CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGE - Respondent Alberto Moreno claimed that the
cancellation of mortgage was invalid given that he had never secured a loan nor signed a contract of mortgage
from Hiyas Savings & Loan Bank, and such would be impossible since he was working abroad. He claimed that
his wife Remedios had conspired with Hiyas and spouses Felipe and Maria Owe to benefit from the loan.

2. PETITIONER HIYAS FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS OF RESPONDENT MORENO’S

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ART. 151 FC ON SUITS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY - Art. 151
states that no suit between same family members shall proper without earnest efforts toward a compromise made
first, and since Moreno has failed to do so, such could be grounds for dismissal. Petitioner invokes the ruling in
De Guzman v. Genato (husband, wife, & paramour: court considered husband’s efforts to confront wife thru the
PH Constabulary as compliance with the law), which implied that requirements for efforts toward compromise
apply even in the presence of a stranger. 


3. MORENO CLAIMS THAT SINCE 3 OF THE PETITIONERS AREN’T MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY (ART.
150 FC), AND THUS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ART. 151 IS NOT A GROUND TO DISMISS - Given that
Hiyas and the Owe spouses are strangers and do not fall within the family relations specified in Art. 150 FC,
Moreno claims that petitioners cannot use the lack of efforts toward a compromise as a grounds for dismissal. 


4. RTC AGREED WITH MORENO AND CLAIMED THAT EFFORTS TO COMPROMISE NOT REQUIRED SINCE 3
PETITIONERS WERE STRANGERS - In 2 issued orders, the RTC of Caloocan ruled that since the case involved
parties who were strangers, failure to allege that earnest efforts towards compromise were made is not a ground
for a Motion to Dismiss. Only petitioner Remedios Moreno can invoke Art. 151 as she is the wife and thus the only
member of the family.

Issue/s: Petitioners thus file petition for certiorari raising the following issues:



- W/N RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Art. 151 not grounds to dismiss case involving
strangers

- W/N RTC erred in ruling that a stranger could not invoke lack of effort to compromise as grounds for dismissal

Holding: (there was also a procedural issue on hierarchy of courts since they went to SC not CA first)



1. NO - Art. 151 FC - 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.


The case that sets precedent is not De Guzman v. Genato but Magbaleta v. Gonong (brothers and stranger, ownership of
property). In this case, the court ruled that once a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving members of the same
family, the law no longer makes it a condition that earnest efforts must be made towards a compromise before
the action can prosper. 



2. NO - Since the Court has ruled that the requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is applicable only
in cases which are exclusively between or among members of the same family, it necessarily follows that the
same may be invoked only by a party who is a member of that same family.

Ruling: Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.