Versoza v. Versoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, Margaret Ann Wainright Versoza and her three minor children, filed a complaint against the defendant, Jose Ma. Versoza, seeking monthly support, support in arrears, damages, and custody of children, with a petition for support pendente lite. The grounds cited were abandonment by the defendant and his maintenance of illicit relations with another woman. Procedural History: The defendant attacked the complaint, claiming it was premature and/or stated no cause of action due to the alleged lack of allegation of earnest efforts toward a compromise, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code for suits between members of the same family. The lower court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to show amicable settlement efforts. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, attaching an affidavit of their counsel stating that settlement efforts were made but were fruitless. The lower court denied this motion. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint, alleging that amicable settlement efforts were sought but were unsuccessful. The lower court denied this second motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal orders, arguing that the requirement of alleging earnest efforts toward compromise need not be pleaded in the complaint and can be proven later. They also contended that even if it were an error, they should be allowed to amend their complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirement of alleging earnest efforts toward a compromise and its failure, under Article 222 of the Civil Code, must be pleaded in the complaint for a suit involving members of the same family. Whether the rule on earnest efforts toward compromise applies to claims for future support. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiffs' motions to amend.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal orders and remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to admit the second amended complaint and proceed with the case. The Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of alleging earnest efforts toward a compromise: The Court reiterated that the text of Article 222 of the Civil Code and Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court generally require that earnest efforts toward a compromise and its failure must be alleged in the complaint as a condition precedent to filing a suit between members of the same family. This is because it forms part of the plaintiffs' cause of action, and its absence means no cause of action is stated. The cumulative impact of the statute and the rule is that such an allegation is ordinarily necessary. On the applicability of the rule to future support: The Court clarified that the general rule on earnest efforts toward compromise does not apply to claims for future support. This is because Article 2035 of the Civil Code explicitly states that no compromise shall be valid on questions of future support. The Court emphasized that Article 222 itself is subject to the limitations in Article 2035. Therefore, an attempt at compromise of future support and failure thereof is not a condition precedent to the filing of a suit for future support, and it need not be alleged in the complaint. On the dismissal of the complaint and denial of amendment: The Court found that since the present action involved a claim for future support, which is outside the scope of Article 222, the complaint could not be dismissed on the ground of lack of allegation of earnest efforts toward compromise. Furthermore, even if there was an error in the original complaint, the Court held that plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint to correct the defect, especially in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The proposed amendment to allege compliance with Article 222 would not confer jurisdiction but merely complete the cause of action, which is a curable defect.
Main Doctrine
An attempt at compromise and failure thereof is not a condition precedent to the filing of a suit for future support, as compromise on future support is prescribed by law, and thus, such a suit need not be alleged in the complaint.