Case Summary (G.R. No. 217744)
Factual Background and Transactions
Jose and his family occupied the subject lands since 1998 as lessees. In 2003, respondents offered to sell these parcels for US$200,000, which Jose accepted verbally, with an intention to eventually formalize the agreement in writing. Jose made partial payments on the shares owned by Consuelo’s children, leaving an outstanding balance to Consuelo. In 2010, Consuelo unilaterally canceled the sale agreement and declared prior payments to be rental fees. Jose rejected this and demanded completion of the sale. Subsequently, in 2011, Consuelo and her children purportedly sold their shares to Rene without Jose’s consent; the titles were accordingly reissued in Rene’s name.
Procedural History in the Regional Trial Court
Jose filed a complaint for specific performance, cancellation of titles, damages, and sought injunctive relief. The RTC dismissed the complaint motu proprio for non-compliance with Article 151 of the Family Code which requires proof of earnest efforts toward compromise in intra-family suits. Jose moved for reconsideration, arguing that (a) the RTC erred by acting motu proprio without a motion from respondents; (b) Article 151 did not apply to the case as not all respondents were “members of the same family” under the law; and (c) he had complied with the compromise requirement through emails and barangay conciliation proceedings with one respondent. The RTC denied the motion, holding that Article 151 applied since the dispute involved full-blooded siblings and the complaints arose chiefly from the relationship between Jose and Consuelo.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, emphasizing that Article 151 mandates dismissal if no earnest efforts towards compromise among family members are proven from the verified complaint or petition. The CA agreed that the core dispute was between full-blooded siblings Jose and Consuelo, thereby warranting application of Article 151, despite the presence of nieces and nephews as co-defendants. It further ruled that barangay conciliation involving only Jose and Rene did not fulfill the statutory requirement since other family members were not part of the proceeding. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues Presented
The Supreme Court addressed two principal issues: (a) whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the RTC’s motu proprio dismissal of Jose’s complaint, and (b) whether Article 151 of the Family Code applies to this case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Motu Proprio Dismissal
Article 151 mandates that “no suit between members of the same family shall prosper” unless there is evidence from the complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward compromise were made. The purpose is to preserve family harmony and prevent bitter intra-family litigation. However, the Court clarified that non-compliance is a condition precedent, not a jurisdictional defect. It is thus waivable if not timely invoked via a motion to dismiss or answer. The Court cited Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, delineating that courts may not dismiss complaints motu proprio on the ground of non-compliance with Article 151 because Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court limits motu proprio dismissals to jurisdictional defects or other enumerated grounds (e.g., litis pendentia, res judicata, prescription). The Court found that the RTC and CA erred in dismissing the complaint on said ground without a motion or answer from respondents.
Applicability of Article 151 to the Case
Article 151’s earnest effort requirement applies only when the suit is strictly between “members of the same family,” as defined in Article 150 of the Family Code. Article 150 enumerates family relations as those between (1) husband and wife; (2) parents and children; (3) other ascendants and descendants; and (4) brothers and sisters (full or half-blood). The presence of a “stranger” to the family in the suit removes the applicability of this requirement. The Court referenced Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. Acuña to explain that it is impractical and unfair to subject strangers to intra-family tensions and procedural constraints designed to foster compromise exclusively among family members.
Relationship of Parties and Implications
Jose and Consuelo are full-blood siblings, and therefore family members under Article 150. Conversely, Consuelo’s children—Jose’s nephews and niece—fall outside the specified close degrees of family in Article 150 and ar
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 217744)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Jose Z. Moreno and his family have been occupying two parcels of land (covered by TCT Nos. 181516 and 181517) since May 1998 as lessees.
- The subject lands are co-owned by Jose’s full-blooded sister Consuelo Moreno Kahn-Haire and her children: Rene M. Kahn, Rene Luis Pierre Kahn, Philippe Kahn, and Ma. Claudine Kahn McMahon (collectively referred to as respondents).
- In 2003, respondents offered to sell the subject lands to Jose for US$200,000, allocated as US$120,000 to Consuelo and US$20,000 each to her children.
- The sale agreement was verbal initially with the intention to reduce it later into a written document.
- Jose made partial payments, settling the shares of Consuelo’s children but leaving a balance of US$120,000 for Consuelo’s share.
- In July 2010, Consuelo unilaterally "cancelled" the agreement and reclassified the prior payments as rental fees.
- Jose demanded the continuation of the sale, but his demands were ignored.
- On July 26, 2011, Consuelo and her children sold their shares to Rene, consolidating ownership; new titles in Rene’s name were issued.
- Jose sent demand letters asserting his rights based on the original sale agreement.
- Attempts at barangay conciliation involved only Jose and Rene due to the absence of other respondents residing abroad.
- No settlement was reached, prompting Jose to file a complaint for specific performance and cancellation of titles with damages and injunctions.
Proceedings Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- The RTC motu proprio dismissed Jose’s complaint on January 18, 2012 for not alleging compliance with Article 151 of the Family Code, which requires earnest efforts for compromise between family members before filing suit.
- Jose filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing:
- The RTC had no authority to dismiss the case motu proprio on grounds of non-compliance with a condition precedent.
- Article 151 did not apply because while Consuelo was his full-blooded sister, the other respondents (nephews and niece) were not considered part of the same family.
- He had complied with the earnest efforts requirement via emails and barangay conciliation involving Rene.
- The RTC denied the motion on October 11, 2012, holding that Article 151 applied since the dispute pitted full-blooded siblings, Jose and Consuelo, against each other, regardless of the inclusion of other parties.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Jose elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari.
- The CA, in a decision dated September 24, 2014, affirmed the RTC’s dismissal based on Article 151 of the Family Code.
- The CA held:
- The motu proprio dismissal was proper given the absence of alleged earnest efforts to compromise.
- Jose’s primary dispute was against his full-blooded sister Cons