G.R. No. L-23102 - Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals

Cecilio Mendoza (petitioner) filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The case originated from a civil action for support (Civil Case No. 3436) filed by Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza (respondent) in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
The petitioner sought relief in the form of a writ of prohibition and a preliminary injunction to halt further proceedings in the lower court.

She was married to Cecilio Mendoza on September 2, 1953.
They cohabited as husband and wife until July 14, 1954, when Cecilio departed for the United States to further his studies and practice his profession.
Since his departure, Cecilio allegedly abandoned and neglected her, failing to provide maintenance and support despite her being pregnant, sickly, and without a secure source of income.

The complaint also noted that while Cecilio claimed an average income of $200 per month from his employment at a hospital in the United States, he was also a part-owner of lands in Munoz, Nueva Ecija, with an assessed value of P32,330 (as of 1955).

He filed an answer with a counterclaim challenging the validity of the marriage.
Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza subsequently replied to the answer.

On July 3, 1961, the petitioner filed a second motion to dismiss the suit, this time arguing:

The complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made prior to the filing of the suit.
His motion relied on Article 222 of the Civil Code, which mandates that a suit between family members must show that attempts at an out-of-court compromise were made before initiating litigation.

The Court of First Instance denied the petitioner’s initial and second motions to dismiss.
Following the denial, Cecilio Mendoza petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition and preliminary injunction to stop further proceedings in the lower court.
The Court of Appeals:

Initially granted the preliminary writ.
After full hearing and consideration of the merits of the case, ultimately denied the writ of prohibition and dissolved the injunction.

The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was also denied, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Whether Article 222 of the Civil Code, which requires that a suit between family members must show that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made, is applicable to the present case.
Whether the complaint’s failure to include an allegation of prior compromise efforts renders it insufficient to state a cause of action.
Whether the claim for future support—being a non-compromisable issue as per the last proviso of Article 222 and Article 2035 of the Civil Code—falls outside the ambit of said requirement.
Whether the rulings of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals in denying dismissal of the complaint are legally sustainable.