Scribd
Upload
934 views2 pages

Family Dispute Exemption in Court

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court improperly dismissed a complaint filed by the Hontiveros spouses due to lack of efforts towards compromise, as required by Article 151 of the Family Code. Article 151 requires verification that earnest compromise efforts were made in suits between family members. However, the inclusion of Teodora Ayson, a non-family member, means Article 151 does not apply. As such, the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint solely due to the lack of verification of compromise efforts. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

bluemode
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
934 views2 pages

Family Dispute Exemption in Court

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court improperly dismissed a complaint filed by the Hontiveros spouses due to lack of efforts towards compromise, as required by Article 151 of the Family Code. Article 151 requires verification that earnest compromise efforts were made in suits between family members. However, the inclusion of Teodora Ayson, a non-family member, means Article 151 does not apply. As such, the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint solely due to the lack of verification of compromise efforts. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

bluemode
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Facts: Presents the background information and details of the complaint filed by the petitioner spouses against the private respondents regarding the land registration issue.
  • Issue: Highlights the legal question addressed in the case concerning whether the Court can invalidate dismisal of a suit post-execution of a compromise.
  • Held: Explains the court's decision and reasoning, clarifying legal interpretations related to Article 161 of the Family Code.
  • Dispositive Portion: Concludes with the court's final order granting the petition and the subsequent actions taken.

HONTIVEROS v. RTC GR No.

125465 June 29, 1999 FACTS: Petitioner spouses Augusto and Maria Hontiveros filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson. The petitioners alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land in Capiz and that they were deprived of income from the land as a result of the filing of the land registration case. In their answer, private respondents denied that they were married and alleged that Gregorio was a widower while Teodora was single. They also denied depriving petitioners of possession of and income from the land. On the contrary, according to the private respondents, the possession of the property in question had already been transferred to petitioners by virtue of the writ of possession. Trial court denied petitioners motion that while in the amended complaint, they alleged that earnest efforts towards a compromise were made, it was not verified as provided in Article 151, therefore, it did not believe that earnest efforts had been made to arrive at a compromise. ISSUE: WON the court can validly dismiss the complaint due to lack of efforts exerted towards a compromise as stated in Article 151 HELD: NO. The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint. The verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct. If the court doubted the veracity of the allegations regarding efforts made to settle the case among members of the same family, it could simply have ordered petitioners to verify them. As this Court has already ruled, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served. Thus, Art. 151 provides: No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. It if is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed. This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code.

Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family Code doesnt apply in this case since the suit is not exclusively among the family members. Citing several cases decided by this Court, petitioners claim that whenever a stranger is a party in the case involving the family members, the requisite showing the earnest efforts to compromise is no longer mandatory. They argue that since private respondent Ayson is admittedly a stranger to the Hontiveros family, the case is not covered by the requirements of Art. 151 of the Family Code. SC held that the inclusion of private respondent Teodora Ayson as defendant and Maria Hontiveros as petitioner takes the case out of the scope of Article 151. Under this provision, the phrase members of the same family refers to the husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters whether full or half-blood. Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given any legal effects in this jurisdiction. Teodora and Maria as spouses of the Hontiveros are regarded as strangers to the Hontiveros family for purposes of Article 151. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and 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 not inconsistent with this decision. SO ORDERED.

You might also like