G.R. No. 175806 175810 - Almagro vs. Kwan

On March 4, 1964, a verified complaint (later amended) was filed by Margaret Ann Wainright Versoza on behalf of herself and their three minor children against her husband, Jose Ma. Versoza.
The complaint sought monthly support of P1,500.00, support in arrears, damages, custody of children, and alimony pendente lite, alleging abandonment by the defendant and his illicit relationship with another woman.

The complaint failed initially to allege that earnest efforts to reach a compromise were made before filing, a requirement mandated by Article 222 of the Civil Code for suits among family members.
The failure to allege such an attempt at compromise raised the issue that the cause of action might be deemed insufficient or premature per the statutory requirement.

On February 22, 1965, the lower court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground that there was no showing of efforts to settle the case amicably prior to the suit as required by Article 222.
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and submitted an affidavit from their counsel attesting to their attempts for an amicable settlement, which was dismissed on March 30, 1965.
A second motion for reconsideration, accompanied by a second amended complaint that now included an allegation of the attempted compromise (albeit unsuccessful), was also denied on June 22, 1965, for lack of merit.

The dismissal orders from the lower court became the subject of appeal before the Supreme Court.
Although the complaint also sought custody of children and damages, the primary relief was support—particularly future support—integrally linking the claims.

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint for failing to allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made before filing, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code.

Does the requirement to allege an attempted compromise apply uniformly to all causes of action among family members?
Is the omission of such allegation fatal to the cause of action for support?

Whether the claim for future support falls within the ambit of Article 222 or falls under a different legal regime.

Given that Article 2035 (formerly Article 1814 of the Spanish Civil Code) excludes future support from compromise, should the complaint have been dismissed despite lacking an allegation of a failed compromise?
How does the prohibition on compromise regarding future support affect the sufficiency of the complaint?

Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint to include an allegation of attempted compromise, and if such amendment would confer upon the lower court proper jurisdiction.

Is the defect in the original pleadings curable by amendment?
What is the acceptable scope for amendments where the jurisdiction is not affected and substantive rights continue to be asserted?