Hiyas Savings Bank v. Acuña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alberto Moreno filed a complaint against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (petitioner), his wife Remedios, the spouses Felipe and Maria Owe, and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage. Moreno alleged that he did not secure any loan from petitioner, nor did he sign any mortgage contract; that his wife, in conspiracy with Hiyas and the spouses Owe, made it appear that he signed the contract; and that he could not have executed the contract as he was working abroad at the time. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Moreno failed to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code, which requires earnest efforts toward a compromise in suits between members of the same family. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Motion to Dismiss, citing jurisprudence that the requirement does not apply when strangers to the family are involved. The RTC also partially granted Moreno's prayer for default against Remedios Moreno and the Register of Deeds, but not against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which was also denied. The RTC reiterated that the requirement of earnest efforts toward compromise is not applicable when strangers are involved and that only Remedios Moreno, as a family member, could invoke Article 151. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC Orders, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that lack of earnest efforts toward a compromise is not a ground for dismissal when strangers are involved, and in ruling that a stranger could not invoke the provisions of Article 151.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss based on the alleged failure of the private respondent to exert earnest efforts toward a compromise pursuant to Article 151 of the Family Code. Whether a party who is a stranger to the family of the litigants could invoke the lack of earnest efforts toward a compromise as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of making earnest efforts toward a compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code applies only to suits exclusively between or among members of the same family. Since the present case involves parties who are strangers to the family, the requirement of prior earnest efforts toward a compromise is not a condition precedent for the action to prosper. Furthermore, only a member of the family can invoke the provisions of Article 151.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Article 151 of the Family Code: The Court reiterated the principle that Article 151 of the Family Code, which mandates earnest efforts toward a compromise in suits between members of the same family, applies only when the suit is exclusively between or among family members. This principle is rooted in the policy to prevent the exacerbation of family feuds and bitterness that litigation between relatives can engender. The Court cited Magbaleta v. Gonong and subsequent cases that affirmed this ruling. The presence of a stranger to the family as a party to the suit removes the necessity of prior compromise efforts as a condition precedent for the action to prosper. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established jurisprudence. On the invocation of Article 151 by a stranger to the family: The Court affirmed the RTC's ruling that a party who is a stranger to the family of the litigants cannot invoke the provisions of Article 151 of the Family Code. Since the requirement under Article 151 is applicable only to suits exclusively between or among members of the same family, it logically follows that only a member of that same family can invoke this provision as a ground for dismissal. The purpose of the rule is to preserve family harmony, a purpose that would not be served by allowing a stranger to interpose this defense. Therefore, the petitioner, being a stranger to the Moreno family, could not validly invoke Article 151 as a ground to dismiss the complaint filed by Alberto Moreno.
Main Doctrine
The requirement of making earnest efforts toward a compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code applies only to suits exclusively between or among members of the same family. If a stranger to the family is a party to the suit, this requirement is not a condition precedent for the action to prosper, and the suit may be dismissed on this ground only if the party invoking it is a member of the family.