Gayon vs Gayon
Facts:
In 1967, Pedro Gayon is the brother of Silvestre Gayon whose wife is Genoveva
Gayon. Pedro filed a case against against Silvetre and Genoveva
for consolidation of ownership. Genoveva alleged that her husband, Silvestre, died
long before the institution of this case. She prayed that for the dismissal of the case
because Pedro, being a brother of the deceasedSilvestre, "did not exert efforts for
the amicable settlement of the case" before filing his complaint.
Issue:
Is there a need for an earnest effort toward a compromise in this case?
Held:
Art. 222 of the Civil Code provides:
No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it
should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that
the same have failed, subject to the limitations in article 2035.
This phrase, "members of the same family," should, however, be construed in the
light of Art. 217 of the same Code, pursuant to which:
Family relations shall include those:
(1) Between husband and wife;
(2) Between parent and child;
(3) Among other ascendants and their descendants;
(4) Among brothers and sisters.
Genoveva is plaintiff's sister-in-law. "Sisters-in-law" are not listed under Art. 217 of
the New Civil Code as members of the same family. Hence, the case does not come
within the purview of Art. 222, and plaintiff's failure to seek a compromise before
filing the complaint does not bar the same. (Gayon vs Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394,
November 26, 1970)
Guerrero vs RTC
FACTS:
Guerrero and Pedro are brothers in law , their respective wives being sisters. Filed
by petitioner as an accion publicana against private respondent, this case assumed
another dimension when it was dismissed by respondent Judge on the ground that
the parties being brother-in-law the complaint should have alleged that earnest
efforts were first exerted towards a compromise.
ISSUE: WON brothers by affinity are considered members of the same family.
HELD:
Considering that Art. 151 herein-quoted starts with the negative word “No”, the
requirement is mandatory 4 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.”
No. The court already ruled in Gayon v. Gayon 6 that the enumeration of “brothers
and sisters” as members of the same family does not comprehend “sisters-in-law”
Hiyas Savings vs Judge Acuna
On November 24, 2000, Alberto Moreno (private respondent) filed with the RTC of
Caloocan City 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 contending that he did not secure any
loan from petitioner, nor did he sign or execute any contract of mortgage in its
favor; that his wife, acting in conspiracy with Hiyas and the spouses Owe, who were
the ones that benefited from the loan, made it appear that he signed the contract
of mortgage; that he could not have executed the said contract because he was
then working abroad.
ISSUE:
W/N HIYAS SAVINGS and LOAN BANK, INC. can invoke Article 151 of the Family
Code.
HELD:
No. The Court has ruled that the requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code
is applicable only in cases which are exclusively between or among members of the
same family, it necessarily follows that the same may be invoked only by a party
who is a member of that same family, as provided for by Article 150 of the Family
Code.

Martinez vs Martinez
GR No. 162084, June 28, 2005
FACTS:
Daniel Martinez Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were the owners of a parcel
of land. The former executed a last will and testament directing the subdivision of
the property into 3 lots bequeathed to each of his sons namely Rodolfo, Manolo
(designated as administrator of the estate), and Daniel Jr. In October 1997, Daniel
Sr. died. Rodolfo then found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on
September 1996 where it appears that the land was sold to Manolo and his wife
Lucila and was also issued to them. Rodolfo filed a complaint against his brother
Manolo and sister-in-law Lucila for the annulment of the deed of sale and
cancellation of the TCT. Spouses wrote Rodolfo demanding him to vacate the
property which the latter ignored and refused to do so. This prompted the spouses
to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against Rodolfo. This matter was referred
to the barangay for conciliation and settlement but none was reached. It was
alleged in the position paper of the spouses that earnest efforts toward a
compromise had been made but the same proved futile.
ISSUE: WON spouses Martinez complied with the requirements of Art 151 of the
Family Code.
HELD:
No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear
from the verified complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been
made, but the same have failed.
Lucila Martinez, the respondent’s sister-in-law was one of the plaintiffs in the case
at bar. The petitioner is not a member of the same family as that of her deceased
husband and the respondent. Her relationship with the respondent is not one of
those enumerated in Article 150. It should also be noted that the petitioners were
able to comply with the requirements of Article 151 because they alleged in their
complaint that they had initiated a proceeding against the respondent for unlawful
detainer in the katarungan Pambarangay in compliance with PD1508 and that after
due proceedings, no amicable settlement was arrived at resulting in the barangay
chairman’s issuance of a certificate to file action.
Pascual v. Pascual
G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992
FACTS:
Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual are the acknowledged natural
children of the late Eligio Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of
the decedent Don Andres Pascual. Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October
12, 1973 without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural, adopted or spurious
children and was survived by Adela Soldevilla de Pascual assurviving spouse,
children of Wenceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of the full blood of the deceased,
children of Pedro-Bautista, brother of the half blood of the deceased,
acknowledged natural children of Eligio Pascual, brother of the full blood of
the deceased and te intestate of Eleuterio T. Pascual, a brother of the half blood of
the deceased and represented by his heirs. Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, the
surviving spouse of the late Don Andres Pascual, filed for administration of the
intestate estate of her late husband. all the above-mentioned heirs entered into a
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, over the vehement objections of the herein petitioners
Olivia S. Pascual and Hermes S. Pascual.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted
to exclude recognized natural children from the inheritance of the deceased.
RULING:
No. Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits
absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and
the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child.
They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the
purposes of Article 992. Between the legitimate family and illegitimate family there
is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate
child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the family is in turn
hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the
former, and the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees
in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of
a blemishbroken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by
avoiding furthergrounds of resentment. Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but
petitioners are his illegitimate children. Clearly the term “illegitimate” refers to both
natural and spurious.
Finally under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate children are generally
placed under one category, which undoubtedly settles the issue as to whether or
not
acknowledged natural children should be treated differently, in the negative. It may to bring the dispute to the barangay conciliation prior to filing of the complaint for
be said that the law may be harsh but that is the law. DUREX LEX SED LEX unlawful detainer with MTCC.

UY vs Estate On the issue of ownership of Rafael, Levi had the right to freely dispose of his
undivided interest. Thus the sale by Levi of his one-half undivided share in the
subject property was not necessarily void, for his right as a co-owner thereof was
FACTS:
effectively transferred, making the buyer Rafael, a co-owner of the subject
Vipa Fernandez Lahaylahay is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in property. Accordingly, Rafael could no-longer be directed to vacate the subject
Jaro, Iloilo City. Vipa and her husband Levi Lahaylahay have two children, Grace Joy property since he is already a co-owner thereof. Nevertheless, Rafael is still bound
and Jill Frances. to pay unpaid rentals from 1998 to 2003.

In 1990, a contract of lease was executed between Vipa and Rafael Uy over the
subject property and the improvements thereon to which Rafael bound himself to
pay the amount of P 3,000/mo with provision for a 10% every year thereafter.

On 1995, Vipa died leaving no will or testament whatsoever, Grace Joy became the
de facto administrator of the estate of Vipa. In 1998, Rafael stopped paying the
monthly rents. Consequently, the estate of Vipa filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer with MTCC against Rafael. Accordingly, at the time of the filing of the
complaint, unpaid rents amounted to P271,150.00.

MTCC rendered a decision ordering Rafael to vacate the premises and to pay the
amount of unpaid rents with 12% interest per annum.

On appeal, RTC reversed the decision of MTCC and dismiss the complaint for
unlawful detainer. According the RTC, Grace was the plaintiff not the estate and it
had failed to the bring the dispute to the barangay conciliation; that the property is
part of conjugal property and after Vipa’s death the conjugal partnership was
terminated. Levi sold his property to Rafael, thus making him co-owner of the
property.

Estate filed a petition for review to CA and reinstated the decision of MTCC.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s decision?

Ruling:

The petition is partly granted.

Complainants by and against corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities

may not filed with, received or acted upon by the barangay for conciliation. The
Estate of Vipa, which is the complainant below, is a juridical entity that has a
personality, separate and distinct from that of Grace Joy. Thus, there is no necessity