You are on page 1of 2

GUERRERO vs.

RTC TOPIC: RULE 16

JANUARY 10, 1994


PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
PETITIONER: Gaudencio Guerrero
RESPONDENTS: RTC of Ilocos Norte, Br. XVI, Judge Luis Bello, Jr and Pedro Hernando

Petitioner and Respondent are brothers-in-law, being married to half-sisters. Petitioner filed a
suit against Respondent, the proceedings of which are summarized below:

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENTS


ACCION PUBLICIANA RTC ILOCOS NORTE
ORDERED P TO FILE HIS
MOTION AND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (Did not file any MTD or attack
To allege that parties are close the complaint on P’s failure to
relatives and that earnest efforts allege compromise efforts)
towards a compromise were exerted
but failed

MR (OF THE ORDER) RTC


-brothers by affinity are not DENIED
members of the same family, -failure to allege that earnest efforts
hence he was not required to towards a compromise is
exert efforts towards a jurisdictional
compromise -warned P that failure to amend
-R Hernando precluded from complaint within 5 days, case would
raising the issue since he did be dismissed
not file a MTD or assert it as an
affirmative defense
RTC
(No amended complaint filed) DISMISSED COMPLAINT

PETITION FOR REVIEW SC


-WON brothers by affinity are GRANTED
considered members of the The requirement to allege that
same family as contemplated in efforts towards a compromise have
NCC and ROC been exerted but failed, in suits
-WON the absence of an between family members, is
allegation in the complaint that mandatory and jurisdictional;
earnest efforts towards a however, the rule is not applicable
compromise were exerted, but in this case, as the parties herein are
failed, is a ground for dismissal not members of the same family
for lack of jursdiction within the contemplation of the law

DISCUSSION:
1. Art. 151, Family Code: “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. xxx”
 “No”  requirement is mandatory

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE


GUERRERO vs. RTC TOPIC: RULE 16

 This provision is contemplated by Sec. 1 par.(j), Rule 16, ROC, which provides as a
ground for a motion to dismiss “that the suit is between members of the same family
and no earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made.”
 O’Laco v. Co Cho Chit: absence of such allegation in the complaint is assailable at any
stage of the proceeding, even on appeal, for lack of cause of action
o R is not deemed to have waived the defect in failing to move to dismiss or raise
the same in his Answer
2. Requirement in NCC and ROC are not applicable in this case
 Gayon vs. Gayon: the enumeration of “brothers and sisters” as members of the same
family does not comprehend “sisters-in-law” (hence, in this case, also brothers-in-law)
 Brothers-in-law are not listed under Art. 217 of the NCC as members of the same
family

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE