Spouses Hontiveros v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Iloilo City
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, spouses Augusto and Maria Hontiveros, filed a complaint for damages against private respondents, spouses Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson, alleging that petitioners were deprived of income from a parcel of land due to a land registration case filed by private respondent Gregorio Hontiveros. Petitioners claimed substantial annual rental income from 1968 to 1987 and thereafter. They asserted that the land registration case and withholding of possession were done in bad faith. Procedural History: Private respondents denied the allegations, claiming possession was transferred to petitioners in 1985 and that they have since received rentals. They also raised defenses including failure to state a cause of action for lack of earnest efforts towards compromise (as petitioners and Gregorio Hontiveros are brothers), the nullity of the appellate court's decision, prescription of claims, and that private respondent Ayson was not married to Gregorio Hontiveros and had no proprietary interest. Petitioners amended their complaint to allege unsuccessful earnest efforts towards compromise. Private respondents answered, denying these efforts. Petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings, which private respondents opposed. On November 23, 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings but dismissed the case, citing the lack of verification of the complaint as required by Article 151 of the Family Code and doubting the sincerity of the alleged compromise efforts. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of verification of the earnest efforts towards compromise and in not proceeding to trial after denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Private respondents raised preliminary issues regarding the mode of appeal and the non-impleading of the RTC judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to verify the allegation of earnest efforts towards compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code, and whether Article 151 of the Family Code applies to the case. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint motu proprio after denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Whether the mode of appeal was proper.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated November 23, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25, is SET ASIDE, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Article 151 of the Family Code and the dismissal for lack of verification: The Supreme Court held that Article 151 of the Family Code, requiring earnest efforts towards compromise in suits between members of the same family, is not applicable when a stranger to the family is impleaded as a party. In this case, the inclusion of private respondent Teodora Ayson, who is not a member of the Hontiveros family by consanguinity or by marriage within the enumerated family members in Article 150 of the Family Code, removes the case from the ambit of Article 151. Furthermore, the Court stated that the absence of verification of the complaint regarding earnest efforts towards compromise is a formal requirement, not jurisdictional. If the court doubted the veracity of the allegation, it could have ordered the petitioners to verify it or waived strict compliance to serve the ends of justice. Mere suspicion or doubt by the trial court is not a ground for dismissal. The Court reiterated that only if it is later shown that no such efforts were made would dismissal be justified, as provided by Article 151 itself. The RTC's dismissal on this ground was therefore erroneous. On the dismissal motu proprio after denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings: The Supreme Court found that the RTC correctly denied the petitioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings because factual issues remained, such as private respondent Teodora Ayson's participation and liability, and the nature and extent of the respondents' possession of the property. However, the Court ruled that the RTC erred in dismissing the case motu proprio thereafter. The Court noted that the RTC itself found judgment on the pleadings inappropriate, implying that a trial on the merits was necessary. The Court cited instances where a court may dismiss a case motu proprio, such as failure to appear, prosecute, comply with rules, or lack of jurisdiction, none of which were present here. The dismissal was therefore improper as it deprived petitioners of their right to be heard and to present evidence on the controverted issues. On the mode of appeal: The Court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by private respondents regarding the mode of appeal. It clarified that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the proper mode of appeal to the Supreme Court when only questions of law are involved, as was the case here. The RTC's order of dismissal was a final order, and the questions raised by petitioners concerned the legal propriety of the dismissal and the applicability of Article 151 of the Family Code, which are questions of law. The Court cited relevant jurisprudence and circulars to support this conclusion.
Main Doctrine
The requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code for earnest efforts towards compromise in suits between members of the same family is not mandatory when a stranger to the family is impleaded as a party, and the absence of verification of the complaint regarding such efforts does not automatically warrant dismissal if the court doubts the veracity of the allegation; instead, the court may order correction or waive strict compliance.