Guerrero v. Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gaudencio Guerrero filed an accion publiciana against private respondent Pedro G. Hernando to recover Lot No. 15731 of the Sarrat Cadastre, Ilocos Norte, with damages. The parties are brothers-in-law, their respective wives being half-sisters. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XVI, Ilocos Norte, dismissed the case on the ground that the complaint failed to allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted between the parties, as required by law for suits between members of the same family. The RTC considered this deficiency a jurisdictional defect. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that brothers-in-law are not members of the same family and that respondent waived the defect by not raising it earlier. The RTC denied the motion and warned of dismissal if the complaint was not amended within five days. Subsequently, the RTC dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to amend the complaint. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the dismissal, raising the issues of whether brothers-in-law are considered members of the same family requiring compromise efforts, and whether the absence of such an allegation is a jurisdictional defect.
Issue(s)
Whether brothers by affinity are considered members of the same family contemplated in Art. 217, par. (4), and Art. 222 of the New Civil Code, as well as under Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, of the Rules of Court requiring earnest efforts towards a compromise before a suit between them may be instituted and maintained. Whether the absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted, which efforts failed, is a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The appealed Orders of December 7, 1992, December 22, 1992, and January 29, 1993, are SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16, or whichever branch of the court the case may now be assigned, is directed to continue with Civil Case No. 10084-16 with deliberate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether brothers-in-law are members of the same family requiring compromise efforts: The Court held that brothers-in-law are not considered members of the same family for the purpose of Article 151 of the Family Code. Citing jurisprudence, specifically Gayon v. Gayon, the Court reiterated that the enumeration of family members does not include sisters-in-law or brothers-in-law. Therefore, the requirement of exerting earnest efforts towards a compromise before filing suit does not apply to the petitioner and private respondent in this case. The Court found no reason to alter this established jurisprudence, even with the Family Code repeating the enumeration of family members. On the issue of whether the absence of an allegation of earnest efforts is a jurisdictional defect: The Court ruled that the absence of an allegation that earnest efforts towards a compromise were made and failed is not a jurisdictional defect. While the requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code and Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court is mandatory, its absence is a curable defect and can be waived. The Court clarified that the private respondent could have raised this defect through a motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense in his answer. His failure to do so at the earliest opportunity meant he could not later insist on it as a ground for dismissal, especially after the case had progressed to the pre-trial stage. The Court also noted that the dismissal orders were not based on a clear defiance of a court order but rather on an erroneous interpretation of the law.
Main Doctrine
Brothers-in-law are not considered members of the same family for the purpose of requiring earnest efforts toward a compromise before filing suit under Article 151 of the Family Code. The absence of an allegation of such efforts is a curable defect and not a jurisdictional one, and may be waived by the opposing party's failure to raise it at the earliest opportunity.