Guzman v. Genato
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a complaint filed by Aurelio En. Jutba against his wife, Jovencia de Guzman, and Federico Recario for indemnification of damages. The damages claimed stem from alleged adulterous acts between the wife and Recario, and for the husband's share in the fruits of conjugal partnership properties administered by his wife during his illness. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, docketed as Civil Case No. 3056. The petitioners, de Guzman and Recario, filed motions to dismiss, arguing lack of cause of action due to the absence of alleged earnest efforts towards compromise between family members and improper venue, as the case allegedly involved real properties. The respondent judge denied these motions on November 14, 1974. Subsequently, the respondent judge set a pre-trial conference, prompting the petitioners to file the instant petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for certiorari with prohibition seeking to annul the respondent judge's order denying the motions to dismiss. The petitioners argue that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion by assuming jurisdiction. They contend there is no cause of action under Article 222 of the Civil Code because the complaint lacks an allegation of failed earnest efforts at compromise between the spouses. Furthermore, they assert that the venue was improperly laid, as the case involves real properties and should have been filed in the locations where these properties are situated, not in the province of the plaintiff's residence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss based on lack of cause of action for failure to allege earnest efforts at compromise. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss based on improper venue.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order is lifted and set aside. Costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the petitioners' contention of lack of cause of action due to the absence of explicit allegations of failed earnest efforts at compromise is without merit. The amended complaint detailed that the husband had made efforts to confront his wife, even enlisting the Philippine Constabulary, but the wife refused to appear. This demonstrated substantial compliance with Article 222 of the Civil Code, which requires earnest efforts to compromise in suits between members of the same family. The Court emphasized that the specific wording of the law is not necessary; similar allegations conveying the same meaning are sufficient. The denial of the motion to dismiss on this ground was therefore proper. On Issue 2: The Court found the contention regarding improper venue to be devoid of merit. The action was characterized as purely personal and for the recovery of damages. Although the complaint mentioned real properties, the plaintiff was not seeking ownership, possession, or partition, which would classify it as a real action. Instead, the plaintiff prayed for specific monetary amounts representing his share in the fruits of the conjugal partnership, expenses incurred for title restoration, moral damages, and attorney's fees. The request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of certain parcels of land was deemed an exercise of his right to administer the conjugal partnership under Article 165 of the Civil Code, not an act that converts the case into a real action. Therefore, the venue, laid at the plaintiff's residence, was proper under Rule 4, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that a complaint filed by a husband against his wife for damages due to alleged adulterous acts and for recovery of his share in conjugal partnership fruits does not require an express allegation of failed earnest efforts at compromise if the circumstances demonstrate such efforts were made and refused. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an action for indemnification of damages, even if it incidentally involves conjugal properties, is a personal action and thus the venue is properly laid at the plaintiff's residence, not necessarily where the properties are located.