FACTS:
Since May 1998, petitioner Jose Z. Moreno and his family, as lessees, have been occupying two (2) parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 181516 and 181517 (subject lands) co-owned by his full-blooded sister, respondent Consuelo Moreno KahnHaire and her children, Rene, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine.
In 2003, respondents offered to sell to Jose the subject lands for the amount of US$200,000.00 (US$120,000.00 to Consuelo and US$20,000.00 each to her children), which Jose accepted.
The agreement was made verbally and was not immediately reduced into writing. Nonetheless, over the next few years, Jose made partial payments to respondents by paying off the shares of Consuelo’s children leaving a remaining balance of US$120,000.00 payable to Consuelo.
However, in July 2010, Consuelo decided to “cancel” their agreement, and instead convert the earlier partial payments as rental payments.
Jose disagreed and demanded that respondents proceed with the sale, which the latter ignored.
On July 26, 2011, without his consent, Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine sold their shares over the subject lands to Rene, thereby consolidating full ownership of the subject lands to him.
Consequently, TCT Nos. 181516 and 181517 were cancelled and new TCTs were issued in Rene’s name.
Upon learning of such sale, Jose sent a demand letter to Rene, and later on to Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine, asserting his right to the subject lands under the previous sale agreed upon. As his demands went unheeded, Jose brought the matter to the barangay lupon for conciliation proceedings between him and Rene only, since Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine are all living abroad.
As no settlement was agreed upon, Jose filed a complaint for specific performance and cancellation of titles with damages and application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
The RTC motu proprio ordered the dismissal of Jose’s complaint for failure to allege compliance with the provision of Article 151 of the Family Code which requires earnest efforts to be made first before suits may be tiled between family members.
The RTC denied Jose’s motion for reconsideration, ruling that Article 151 of the Family Code applies, despite the inclusion of Consuelo’s children in the suit, as the dispute was mainly due to the disagreement between full-blooded siblings, Jose and Consuelo.
Aggrieved, Jose filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
Undaunted, Jose moved for reconsideration, which was denied, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC can motu proprio order the dismissal of a case on the ground of failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code requiring earnest efforts at a compromise in a complaint among members of the same family.
RULING:
The petition is meritorious.
Article 151 of the Family Code reads:
Article 151. 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. If it 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.
Palpably, the wisdom behind the provision is to maintain sacred the ties among members of the same family. “As pointed out by the Code Commission, it is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation between members of the same family. It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a compromise before a litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family and it is known that a lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers.”
Thus, a party’s failure to comply with this provision before filing a complaint against a family member would render such complaint premature; hence, dismissible.
This notwithstanding, the Court held in Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, that non-compliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is not a jurisdictional defect which would authorize the courts to dismiss suits filed before them motu proprio.
Rather, it merely partakes of a condition precedent such that the non-compliance therewith constitutes a ground for dismissal of a suit should the same be invoked by the opposing party at the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
Otherwise, such ground is deemed waived.
Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim, namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia: (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription of action. x x x.
A failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a complaint among members of the same family, is not a jurisdictional defect but merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action.
The defect may however be waived by failing to make seasonable objection, in a motion to dismiss or answer, the defect being a mere procedural imperfection which does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
In the case at hand, no motion to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to comply with a condition precedent was filed in the trial court; neither was such failure assigned as error in the appeal that respondent brought before the CA.
Therefore, the rule on deemed waiver of the non-jurisdictional defense or objection is wholly applicable to respondent. If the respondents as parties-defendants could not, and did not, after filing their answer to petitioner’s complaint, invoke the objection of absence of the required allegation on earnest efforts at a compromise, the appellate court unquestionably did not have any authority or basis to motu propio order the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint.
In this case, the courts a quo clearly erred in finding that a motu proprio dismissal was warranted under the given circumstances.