Civ Pro 091 PDF

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 309 1/16/18, 13:50
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City
*
G.R. No. 125465. June 29, 1999.
SPOUSES AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS and MARIA

HONTIVEROS, petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, Branch 25, Iloilo City and SPOUSES GREGORIO
HONTIVEROS and TEODORA AYSON, respondents.
Appeals; Petitions for Review; Pleadings and Practice; Direct

appeals to the Supreme Court from the trial court on questions of
law have to be through the filing of a petition for review on
certiorari.·The petition in this case was filed pursuant to Rule 45
of the Rules of Court. As explained in Atlas Consolidated Mining
and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals: Under Section 5,
subparagraph (2)(e), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the
Supreme Court is vested with the power to review, revise, reverse,
modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in all
cases in
___________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
341
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 341
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd83ede495c92d48003600fb002c009e/p/ATB901/?username=Guest Page 1 of 18
which only an error or question of law is involved. A similar

provision is contained in Section 17, fourth paragraph,
subparagraph (4) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by
Republic Act No. 5440. And, in such cases where only questions of
law are involved, Section 25 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines
implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in conjunction with
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5440, provides that the appeal to the
Supreme Court shall be taken by petition for certiorari which shall
be governed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule, therefore, is
that direct appeals to this Court from the trial court on questions of
law have to be through the filing of a petition for review on
certiorari.
Actions; Dismissals of Actions; The court cannot dismiss a case
motu proprio without violating the plaintiffÊs right to be heard;
Exceptions.·There are instances when the trial court may order
the dismissal of the case even without a motion to that effect filed
by any of the parties. In Baja v. Macandog, this Court mentioned
these cases, to wit: The court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio
without violating the plaintiff Ês right to be heard, except in the
following instances: if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the
trial; if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of
time; or if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court;
or if the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the suit.
Same; Judgment on the Pleadings; Where there are actual
issues raised in the answer, such as one involving damages, which
require the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the
trial court, it is improper for the judge to render judgment based on
the pleadings alone.·Under the rules, if there is no controverted
matter in the case after the answer is filed, the trial court has the
discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a
party. Where there are actual issues raised in the answer, such as
one involving damages, which require the presentation of evidence
and assessment thereof by the trial court, it is improper for the
judge to render judgment based on the pleadings alone. In this case,
aside from the amount of damages, the following factual issues have
to be resolved, namely, (1) private respondent Teodora AysonÊs
participation and/or liability, if any, to petitioners and (2) the
nature, extent, and duration of private respondentsÊ possession of
the subject property. The trial court, therefore, correctly denied
petitionersÊ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
342
Same; Verifications; Jurisdiction; The absence of the verification

required in Article 151 of the Family Code does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint; If
the court doubts the veracity of the allegations regarding efforts
made to settle the case among members of the same family, it could
simply order the petitioners to verify them.·The trial court erred in
dismissing petitionersÊ complaint on the ground that, although it
alleged that earnest efforts had been made toward the settlement of
the case but they proved futile, the complaint was not verified for
which reason the trial court could not believe the veracity of the
allegation. 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. Otherwise, mere suspicion or doubt on the part of the trial
court as to the truth of the allegation that earnest efforts had been
made toward a compromise but the partiesÊ efforts proved
unsuccessful is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only if it
is later shown that such efforts had not really been exerted would
the court be justified in dismissing the action.
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Persons and Family Relations;
Words and Phrases; The inclusion of parties who are not members of
the same family takes the case out of the ambit of Article 151 of the
Family Code; 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,
but does not include „brothers-in-law‰ and „sisters-in-law.‰·The
inclusion of private respondent Ayson as defendant and petitioner
Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff takes the case out of the ambit of Art.
151 of the Family Code. 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. As this Court held in Guerrero v. RTC,
Ilocos Norte, Br. XVI: 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.‰
In that case,
343
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 343
then Chief Justice Concepcion emphasized that „sisters-in-law‰

(hence, also „brothers-in-law‰) are not listed under Art. 217 of the
New Civil Code as members of the same family. Since Art. 150 of
the Family Code repeats essentially the same enumeration of
„members of the family,‰ we find no reason to alter existing
jurisprudence on the matter. Consequently, the court a quo erred in
ruling that petitioner Guerrero, being a brother-in-law of private
respondent Hernando, was required to exert earnest efforts towards
a compromise before filing the present suit.
Same; Same; Same; Religious relationship and relationship by
affinity are not given any legal effect in this jurisdiction.·Religious
relationship and relationship by affinity are not given any legal
effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, private respondent Ayson,
who is described in the complaint as the spouse of respondent
Hontiveros, and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, who is admittedly the
spouse of petitioner Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers
to the Hontiveros family, for purposes of Art. 151.
Judicial Review; Courts do not pass upon constitutional
questions unless they are the very lis mota of the case.·Petitioners
finally question the constitutionality of Art. 151 of the Family Code
on the ground that it in effect amends the Rules of Court. This,
according to them, cannot be done since the Constitution reserves in
favor of the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules of
pleadings and procedure. Considering the conclusion we have
reached in this case, however, it is unnecessary for present purposes
to pass upon this question. Courts do not pass upon constitutional

questions unless they are the very lis mota of the case.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Br. 25.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioners.
Resurreccion S. Salvilla for private respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
On December 3, 1990, petitioners, the spouses Augusto and

Maria Hontiveros, filed a complaint for damages against
pri-
344

vate respondents Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson

before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25,
where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 19504. In said
complaint, petitioners alleged that they are the owners of a
parcel of land, in the town of Jamindan, Province of Capiz,
as shown by OCT No. 0-2124, issued pursuant to the
decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, dated April
12, 1984, which modified the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Capiz, 1
dated January 23, 1975, in a land
registration case filed by private respondent Gregorio
Hontiveros; that petitioners were deprived of income from
the land as a result of the filing of the land registration
case; that such income consisted of rentals from tenants of
the land in the amount of P66,000.00 per year from 1968 to
1987, and P595,000.00 per year thereafter; and that
private respondents filed the land registration case and
withheld
2
possession of the land from petitioners in bad
faith.
In their answer, private respondents denied that they
were married and alleged that private respondent
Hontiveros was a widower while private respondent Ayson
was single. They denied that they had deprived petitioners

of possession of and income from the land. On the contrary,
they alleged that possession of the property in question had
already been transferred to petitioners on August 7, 1985,
by virtue of a writ of possession, dated July 18, 1985,
issued by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of
Capiz, Mambusao, the return thereof having been received
by petitionersÊ counsel; that since then, petitioners have
been directly receiving rentals from the tenants of the land;
that the complaint failed to state a cause of action since it
did not allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise
had been made, considering that petitioner Augusto
Hontiveros and private respondent Gregorio Hontiveros are
brothers; that the decision of the Intermediate Appellate
Court in Land Registration Case No. N-581-25 was
_________________
1 Docketed as Land Registration Case No. N-581-25, LRC Rec. No.

288.
2 See Amended Complaint; Petition, Annex A; Rollo, pp. 28-30.
345
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 345

null and void since it was based upon a ground which was
not passed upon by the trial court; that petitionersÊ claim
for damages was barred by prescription with respect to
claims before 1984; that there were no rentals due since
private respondent Hontiveros was a possessor in good
faith and for value; and that private respondent Ayson had
nothing to do with the case as she was not married to
private respondent Gregorio Hontiveros and did not have
any proprietary interest in the subject property. Private
respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and
for an order against petitioners to pay damages to private
respondents by way of counterclaim, as well 3 as
reconveyance of the subject land to private respondents.
On May 16, 1991, petitioners filed an Amended
Complaint to insert therein an allegation that „earnest
efforts towards a compromise have been made between the

parties but the same were unsuccessful.‰
In due time, private respondents filed an Answer to
Amended Complaint with Counterclaim, in which they
denied, among other things, that earnest efforts had been
made to reach a compromise but the parties were
unsuccessful. On July 19, 1995, petitioners moved for a
judgment on the pleadings on the ground that private
respondentsÊ answer did not tender an issue or that it
otherwise 4 admitted the material allegations of the
complaint. Private respondents opposed the motion
alleging that they had denied petitionersÊ claims and thus
tendered certain
5
issues of fact which could only be resolved
after trial.
On November 23, 1995, the trial court denied
petitionersÊ motion. At the same time, however, it dismissed
the case on the ground that the complaint was not verified
as required by Art. 151 of the Family Code and, therefore,
it did not believe
_________________
3 See Amended Answer; Petition, Annex B; Rollo, pp. 31-35.

4 Petition, Annex C; Rollo, pp. 36-46.
5 Petition, Annex H.
346

that earnest efforts had been made to 6arrive at a

compromise. The order of the trial court reads:
The Court, after an assessment of the diverging views and

arguments presented by both parties, is of the opinion and so holds
that judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate not only for the fact
that the defendants in their answer, particularly in its paragraph 3
to the amended complaint, specifically denied the claim of damages
against them, but also because of the ruling in De la Cruz vs. Cruz,
G.R. No. 27759, April 17, 1970 (32 SCRA 307), citing Rili vs.
Chunaco, 98 Phil. 505, which ruled that the party claiming damages
must satisfactorily prove the amount thereof and that though the
rule is that failure to specifically deny the allegations in the
complaint or counter-claim is deemed an admission of said
allegations, there is however an exception to it, that is, that when
the allegations refer to the amount of damages, the allegations
must still be proved. This ruling is in accord with the provision of
Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
That while the plaintiffs in their amended complaint allege that
earnest efforts towards a compromise with the defendants were
made, the fact is that their complaint was not verified as provided
in Article 151 of the Family Code. Besides, it is not believed that
there were indeed earnest efforts made to patch up and/or reconcile
the two feuding brothers, Gregorio and Augusto, both surnamed
Hontiveros.
The submission of the plaintiffs that, assuming no such earnest
efforts were made, the same is not necessary or jurisdictional in the
light of the ruling in Rufino Magbaleta, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon.
Arsenio M. Gonong, et al., respondents, No. L-44903, April 22, 1977,
is, to the mind of this Court, not applicable to the case at bar for the
fact is the rationale in that case is not present in the instant case
considering these salient points:
a) Teodora Ayson, the alleged wife of defendant

Gregorio Hontiveros and allegedly not a member of
the Hontiveros Family, is not shown to be really the
wife of Gregorio, a fact which Gregorio also denied
in their verified answer to the amended complaint;
b) Teodora Ayson has not been shown to have acquired
any proprietary right or interest in the land that
was litigated by Grego
___________________
6 Id., Annex E.
347
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 347

rio and Augusto, unlike in the cited case of

Magbaleta where it was shown that a stranger to
the family acquired certain right;

c) In the decision rendered by the appellate court no
mention was made at all of the name of Teodora
Ayson as part-awardee of Lot 37 that was adjudged
to Gregorio other than himself who was therein
described as a widower. Moreover, Teodora was
never mentioned in said decision, nor in the
amended complaint and in the amended motion for
judgment on the pleadings that she ever took any
part in the act or transaction that gave rise to the
damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs for
which they now claim some compensation.
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing premises, the Court

orders, as it hereby orders, the dismissal of this case with cost
against the plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of7 the order of

dismissal, but their motion was denied. Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners contend:
I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PALPABLY

ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON
THE GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT ALLEGE
UNDER OATH THAT EARNEST EFFORTS
TOWARD A COMPROMISE WERE MADE PRIOR
TO THE FILING THEREOF AS REQUIRED BY
ARTICLE 151 OF THE FAMILY CODE.
II. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PALPABLY
ERRED IN NOT DENYING THE MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND
ORDERING A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.
Private respondents raise a preliminary question. They

argue that petitioners should have brought this case on
appeal to the Court of Appeals since the order of the trial
court judge was actually a decision on the merits. On the
other hand, even if petition for certiorari were the proper
remedy, they contend that the petition is defective because
the judge of8 the trial court has not been impleaded as a
respondent.
_________________
7 Id., Annex F.
8 Comment/Answer, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 60-61.
348

Private respondentsÊ contention is without merit. The

petition in this case was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. As explained in Atlas Consolidated
9
Mining
and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals:
Under Section 5, subparagraph (2)(e), Article VIII of the 1987

Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the power to review,
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts in all cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved. A similar provision is contained in Section 17, fourth
paragraph, subaragraph (4) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended by Republic Act No. 5440. And, in such cases where only
questions of law are involved, Section 25 of the Interim Rules and
Guidelines implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in conjunction
with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5440, provides that the appeal to
the Supreme Court shall be taken by petition for certiorari which
shall be governed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The rule, therefore, is that direct appeals to this Court from the
trial court on questions of law have to be through the filing of a
petition for review on certiorari. It has been held that:
x x x when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original

jurisdiction, the correct mode of elevating the judgment to the Court of
Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error, involving
merely the filing of a notice of appeal·except only if the appeal is taken
in special proceedings and other cases wherein multiple appeals are
allowed under the law, in which even the filing of a record on appeal is
additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely
questions of law or any of the other cases (except criminal cases as stated
hereunder) specified in Section 5(2), Article X of the Constitution, it
should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari
in accordance with Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules of Court.
By way of implementation of the aforestated provisions of law,

this Court issued on March 9, 1990 Circular No. 2-90, paragraph 2
of which provides:
_________________
9 201 SCRA 51, 58-59 (1991).
349
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 349

2. Appeals from Regional Courts to the Supreme Court.·Except in

criminal cases where the penalty imposed is life imprisonment or
reclusion perpetua, judgments of regional trial courts may be appealed to
the Supreme Court only by petition for review on certiorari in accordance
with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, this being the clear intendment of the
provision of the Interim Rules that (a)ppeals to the Supreme Court shall
be taken by petition for certiorari which shall be governed by Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
Under the foregoing considerations, therefore, the inescapable

conclusion is that herein petitioner adopted the correct mode of
appeal in G.R. No. 88354 by filing with this Court a petition to
review on certiorari the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
in Civil Case No. 25528 and raising therein purely questions of law.
10
In Meneses v. Court of Appeals, it was held:
It must also be stressed that the trial courtÊs order of 5 June 1992
dismissing the petitionerÊs complaint was, whether it was right or
wrong, a final order because it had put an end to the particular
matter resolved, or settled definitely the matter therein disposed of
and left nothing more to be done by the trial court except the
execution of the order. It is a firmly settled rule that the remedy
against such order is the remedy of appeal and not certiorari. That
appeal may be solely on questions of law, in which case it may be
taken only to this Court; or on questions of fact and law, in which
case the appeal should be brought to the Court of Appeals.
Pursuant to Murillo v. Consul, the appeal to this Court should be by
petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
As private respondents themselves admit, the order of

November 23, 1995 is a final order from which an appeal
can be taken. It is final in the sense that it disposes of the
pending action before the court and puts an end to the
litigation
11
so that nothing more was left for the trial court to
do. Further-
__________________
10 237 SCRA 484, 491-492 (1994).

11 Allied Free Workers Union v. Judge Estipona, 113 Phil. 748 (1961).
350

more, as the questions raised are questions of law, petition

for review on certiorari is the proper mode of appeal. These
questions are: (1) whether after denying petitionersÊ motion
for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court could dismiss
their complaint motu proprio for failure to comply with Art.
151 of the Family Code which provides that no suit
between members of the same family shall prosper unless
it appears from the complaint, which must be verified, that
earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made but
the same have failed; and (2) whether Art. 151 applies to
this case. These questions do not require an examination of
the probative value of evidence presented and the truth or
falsehood
12
of facts asserted which questions of fact would
entail.
On the other hand, petitioners contend that the trial
court erred in dismissing the complaint when no motion to
that effect was made by any of the parties. They point out
that, in opposing the motion for judgment on the pleadings,
private respondents did not seek the dismissal of the case
but only the denial of petitionersÊ motion. Indeed, what
private respondents asked was that trial be held on the
merits.
Of course, there are instances when the trial court may
order the dismissal of the case even without a motion to

that effect13 filed by any of the parties. In Baja v.
Macandog, this Court mentioned these cases, to wit:
The court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the
plaintiff Ês right to be heard, except in the following instances: if the
plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial; if he fails to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or if he fails
to comply with the rules or any order of the court; or if the court
finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
However, none of these exceptions appears in this case.
__________________
12 See Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 258

SCRA 195, 199 (1996).
13 158 SCRA 391, 396-397 (1986).
351
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 351

Moreover, the trial court itself found that „judgment on the

pleadings is inappropriate not only for the fact that
[private respondents] in their answer . . . specifically
denied the claim of damages against them, but also because
of the [rule] . . . that the party claiming damages must
satisfactorily prove the amount thereof . . . .‰ Necessarily, a
trial must be held. 14
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings.·Where an answer fails to

tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegation of the
adverse partyÊs pleading, the court may, on motion of the party,
direct judgment on such pleading. But in actions for annulment of
marriage or for legal separation the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved.
Under the rules, if there is no controverted matter in the

case after the answer is filed, the trial court has the
discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings
15
filed by a party. Where there are actual issues raised in
the answer, such as one involving damages, which require
the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the
trial court, it is improper for the
16
judge to render judgment
based on the pleadings alone. In this case, aside from the
amount of damages, the following factual issues have to be
resolved, namely, (1) private respondent Teodora AysonÊs
participation and/or liability, if any, to petitioners and (2)
the nature, extent, and duration of private respondentsÊ
possession of the subject property. The trial court,
therefore, correctly denied petitionersÊ motion for judgment
on the pleadings.
However, the trial court erred in dismissing petitionersÊ
complaint on the ground that, although it alleged that
earnest efforts had been made toward the settlement of the
case but they proved futile, the complaint was not verified
for which
____________________
14 Now Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

15 1 V.J. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines 1033
(1973).
16 Rocamora v. RTC, Cebu (Branch VIII), 167 SCRA 615 (1988); 1 M. V.
Moran, Comment on the Rules of Court 538 (1967).
352

reason the trial court could not believe the veracity of the
allegation.
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 with17 the rules in order that the ends of
justice may be served. Otherwise, mere suspicion or doubt
on the part of the trial court as to the truth of the
allegation that earnest efforts had been made toward a
compromise but the partiesÊ efforts proved unsuccessful is
not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only if it is
later shown that such efforts had not really been exerted
would the court be justified in dismissing the action. 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 does not apply in this case since the suit is not 18
exclusively among family members. Citing several cases
decided
_________________
17 See Vda. de Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 137 (1996); Sy v.

Habicon-Garayblas, 228 SCRA 644 (1993); Buenaventura v. Halili, 149
SCRA 22 (1987).
18 Magbaleta v. Gonong, 76 SCRA 511 (1977); Gayon v. Gayon, 36
SCRA 104 (1970); Mendez v. Eugenia, 80 SCRA 82 (1977); Gon
353
VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 353

by this Court, petitioners claim that whenever a stranger is

a party in a case involving family members, the requisite
showing of 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.
We agree with petitioners. The inclusion of private
respondent Ayson as defendant and petitioner Maria
Hontiveros as plaintiff takes the case out of the ambit of
Art. 151 of the Family Code. Under this provision, the
phrase „members of the same family‰ refers to the husband
and wife, parents and children, ascendants and
descendants,
19
and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-
blood. As20
this Court held in Guerrero v. RTC, Ilocos Norte,
Br. XVI:
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.‰ In that case,
then Chief Justice Concepcion emphasized that „sisters-in-law‰
(hence, also „brothers-in-law‰) are not listed under Art. 217 of the
New Civil Code as members of the same family. Since Art. 150 of
the Family Code repeats essentially the same enumeration of
„members of the family,‰ we find no reason to alter existing
jurisprudence on the matter. Consequently, the court a quo erred in
ruling that petitioner Guerrero, being a brother-in-law of private
respondent Hernando, was required to exert earnest efforts towards
a compromise before filing the present suit.
Religious relationship and relationship by 21affinity are not

given any legal effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently,
private respondent Ayson, who is described in the
complaint as the spouse of respondent Hontiveros, and
petitioner Maria Hontiveros, who is admittedly the spouse
of petitioner
_________________
zales v. Lopez, 160 SCRA 346 (1988); Guerrero v. RTC, Ilocos Norte, Br.
XVI, 229 SCRA 274 (1994).
19 Family Code, Art. 150.
20 229 SCRA 274, 278 (1994).
21 1 A.M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code of the Philippines 504 (1990).
354

Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers to the

Hontiveros family, for purposes of Art. 151.
Petitioners finally question the constitutionality of Art.
151 of the Family Code on the ground that it in effect
amends the Rules of Court. This, according to them, cannot
be done since the Constitution reserves in favor of the
Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules of pleadings
and procedure. Considering the conclusion we have reached
in this case, however, it is unnecessary for present
purposes to pass upon this question. Courts do not pass
upon constitutional questions unless they are the very lis
mota of the case.
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.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Puno, Quisumbing and

Buena, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, order set aside. Case remanded to trial

court for further proceedings.
Notes.·Earnest efforts towards a compromise is a

condition precedent to filing of suits between members of
the same family, non-compliance of which, complaint is
assailable at any stage of the proceedings for lack of cause
of action. (OÊLaco vs. Co Cho Chit, 220 SCRA 656 [1993])
A brother-in-law is not a member of the family of his
wife and is outside the scope and coverage of Article 222 of
the Civil Code requiring that the same members of a family
should exert efforts to bring about a compromise before the
commencement of a litigation. (Esquivias vs. Court of
Appeals, 272 SCRA 803 [1997])
··o0o··
355
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Civ Pro 091 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civ Pro 091 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 309 1/16/18, 13:50

340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SPOUSES AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS and MARIA

Appeals; Petitions for Review; Pleadings and Practice; Direct

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 341

Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City

which only an error or question of law is involved. A similar

342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City

Same; Verifications; Jurisdiction; The absence of the verification

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 343

Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City

then Chief Justice Concepcion emphasized that „sisters-in-law‰

to pass upon this question. Courts do not pass upon constitutional

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

On December 3, 1990, petitioners, the spouses Augusto and

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

vate respondents Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson

was single. They denied that they had deprived petitioners

1 Docketed as Land Registration Case No. N-581-25, LRC Rec. No.

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 345

efforts towards a compromise have been made between the

3 See Amended Answer; Petition, Annex B; Rollo, pp. 31-35.

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

that earnest efforts had been made to 6arrive at a

The Court, after an assessment of the diverging views and

a) Teodora Ayson, the alleged wife of defendant

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 347

rio and Augusto, unlike in the cited case of

the family acquired certain right;

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing premises, the Court

Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of7 the order of

I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PALPABLY

Private respondents raise a preliminary question. They

348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Private respondentsÊ contention is without merit. The

Under Section 5, subparagraph (2)(e), Article VIII of the 1987

x x x when a CFI (RTC) adjudicates a case in the exercise of its original

By way of implementation of the aforestated provisions of law,

9 201 SCRA 51, 58-59 (1991).

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 349

2. Appeals from Regional Courts to the Supreme Court.·Except in

Under the foregoing considerations, therefore, the inescapable

As private respondents themselves admit, the order of

10 237 SCRA 484, 491-492 (1994).

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

more, as the questions raised are questions of law, petition

order the dismissal of the case even without a motion to

However, none of these exceptions appears in this case.

12 See Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 258

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 351

Moreover, the trial court itself found that „judgment on the

SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings.·Where an answer fails to

Under the rules, if there is no controverted matter in the

14 Now Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it

Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family

17 See Vda. de Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 137 (1996); Sy v.

VOL. 309, JUNE 29, 1999 353

by this Court, petitioners claim that whenever a stranger is

Ayson is admittedly a stranger to the Hontiveros family,