Guerrero v.

RTC, GR 109068, 10 January 1994, 229 SCRA 274

GAUDENCIO GUERRERO,

petitioner, vs.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOCOS NORTE, BR. XVI, JUDGE LUIS B. BELLO, JR., PRESIDING, and PEDRO G.
HERNANDO,

respondents. FACTS:

1.

Pedro G. Hernando apparently overlooked this alleged defect since he did not file any motion to dismiss
nor attack the complaint on this ground in his answer.

2.

@ PRE-TRIAL: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr.: NOTED THAT: GUERRERO and HERNANDO were related as
brothers-in-law then JUDGE gave petitioner five (5) days "to file his motion and amended complaint" to
allege that the parties were very close relatives, their respective wives being sisters, and that the
complaint to be maintained should allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted but
failed and considered this deficiency a JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.

3.

MR was filed by GUERRERO: brothers by affinity are not members of the same family, he was not
required to exert efforts towards a compromise

DENIED: "[f]ailure to allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise is jurisdictional such that for
failure to allege same the court would be deprived of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case."

4.

Case was dismissed without prejudice: No amended complaint filed

5.

ISSUE: ON APPEAL: GUERRERO: a.

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; b.

whether the absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts towards a compromise were
exerted, which efforts failed, is a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. HELD: 1.
The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family and endeavors to strengthen it as a basic
autonomous social institution.

This is also embodied in Art. 149, and given flesh in Art. 151, of the Family Code, which provides: 2.

Considering that Art. 151 starts with the negative word "No", the requirement is mandatory

that the complaint or petition, which must be verified, should allege that earnest efforts towards a
compromise have been made but that the same failed, so that "[i]f it is shown that no such efforts were
in fact made, the case must be dismissed." 3.

BUT the instant case presents no occasion for the application of the above-quoted provisions. As early
as two decades ago, we already ruled in

Gayon v

Gayon

that the enumeration of "brothers and sisters" as members of the same family does not comprehend
"sisters-in-law". 4.

The requirement that the complaint or petition should allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise
have been made but that the same failed is mandatory 5.

The enumeration of brothers and sisters as members of the same family does not comprehend sister

-in-

law/ brothers

-in-
law are not listed in Art 217 of the NCC as members of the same family and since Art 150 repeats the
same members of the family court finds no reason to alter the existing

jurisprudence 6.

nd

ISSUE: The attempt to compromise as well as the inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the
filing of a suit between members of the same family, absent such allegation in the complaint being
assailable at any stage of the proceeding, even on appeal, for lack of cause of action