VDA DE MANALO vs CA (2001)

Petitioner: PILAR S. VDA. DE MANALO, ANTONIO S. MANALO,

ORLANDO S. MANALO, and ISABELITA MANALO
Respondent: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MANILA (BRANCH 35), PURITA S. JAYME, MILAGROS M.
TERRE, BELEN M. ORILLANO, ROSALINA M. ACUIN, ROMEO S.
MANALO, ROBERTO S. MANALO, AMALIA MANALO and IMELDA
MANALO
Ponencia: De Leon Jr., J.
FACTS:
1. Troadio Manalo, a resident of Sampaloc, Manila, died intestate in
1992. He was survived by his wife and his eleven children, who are
all of legal age. He left several real properties located in Manila and
in Tarlac including a business- Manalos Machine Shop with offices at
Quezon City and at Valenzuela.
2. In November, the respondents, who are eight of the surviving
children filed a petition with the RTC for the judicial settlement of the
estate of their late father and for the appointment of their brother,
Romeo, as administrator thereof.
3. The trial court issued an order setting the said petition for hearing
and directing the publication of the order for three (3) consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, and
directing service by registered mail of the order.
4. The trial court issued an order declaring the whole world in default,
except the government, and set the reception of evidence of the
petitioners. However, this order of general default was set aside by
the trial court upon motion of the petitioners who were granted ten
(10) days within which to file their opposition to the petition.
5. Several pleadings were subsequently filed by petitioners, culminating
in the filing of an Omnibus Motion seeking: (1) to reconsider the
denial of the motion for additional extension of time to file opposition;
(2) to set for preliminary hearing their affirmative defenses as
grounds for dismissal of the case; (3) to declare that the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction; and (4) for the immediate inhibition of the
presiding judge.
6. The trial called resolved such issues in the following manner: 1.)
admitted the opposition for the purpose of considering the merits 2.)

denied the hearing for such affirmative defenses are irrelevant and
immaterial 3.) declared that the court had jurisdiction 4.) denied the
motion for inhibition 4.) set the application of Romeo Manalo for
appointment as regular administrator in the for hearing
7. The MR of the petitioners was denied; hence, they filed a petition for
certiorari, contending that: (1) the venue was improperly laid; (2) the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons; (3) the share
of the surviving spouse was included in the intestate proceedings; (4)
there was absence of earnest efforts toward compromise
among members of the same family; and (5) no certification of
non-forum shopping was attached to the petition
8. CA dismissed; MR was denied. Hence, this petition for review.
9. Petitioners claim that the petition for letters for administration,
settlement and distribution of estate is actually an ordinary civil action
involving members of the same family and thus should be dismissed
under Rule 16 of the ROC on the ground that a condition precedent
for filing the claim has not been complied with- that is, that there was
failure to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been
made involving members of the same family prior to the filing of the
petition pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
ISSUES: W/N CA erred in upholding the questioned orders of the RTC which
denied their motion for the outright dismissal of the petition for judicial
settlement of estate
RULING + RATIO: NO. The Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration,
Settlement and Distribution of Estate is a special proceeding and, as such, it
is a remedy whereby the respondents seek to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. They merely seek to establish the fact of death of their father
and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said
deceased so that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the
settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the
limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.
In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the
averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint shall be
controlling. A careful scrutiny of the petition belies the claim that the same is
in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The said petition contains sufficient
jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a
deceased person such as the fact of death and his residence which are
foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in the
Czar Paguio

administration of the estate rest. It also contains an enumeration of the

names of his legal heirs including a tentative list of the properties left by the
deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings. In
addition, the reliefs prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as
regard the intention to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased
father.
Petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid
petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising
matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition. They may also
not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules
of Court to justify the invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the
deceased Troadio Manalo.
Art. 222. 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
Art. 222 is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term
suit that it refers to an action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues
another for the enforcement of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong. An excerpt from the Report of the Code Commission unmistakably
reveals the intention of the Code Commission to make that legal provision
applicable only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve
members of the same family, thus:
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. It is known that lawsuit between close relatives
generates deeper bitterness than strangers.
DISPOSITION: Petition is denied for lack of merit

Czar Paguio

GAYON vs GAYON (1970)

Petitioner: PEDRO GAYON
Respondent: SILVESTRE GAYON and GENOVEVA DE GAYON
Ponencia: Concepcion, J.
FACTS:
1.) On July 31, 1967, Pedro Gayon filed a complaint against the
spouses Gayon, alleging that:
- said spouses executed a deed whereby they sold to Pedro
Gelera, for the sum of P500.00, a parcel of unregistered land
located in the barrio of Cabubugan, Iloilo, including the
improvements thereon, subject to redemption within five (5)
years or not later than October 1, 1957;
- said right of redemption had not been exercised by the spouses,
or any of their heirs or successors, despite the expiration of the
period;
- Pedro Gelera and his wife had, by virtue of a deed of sale sold
the aforementioned land to him for the sum of P614.00;
- he had introduced improvements worth P1,000;
- he had fully paid the taxes on said property up to 1967; and
- Articles 1606 and 1616 of our Civil Code require a judicial decree
for the consolidation of the title in and to a land acquired through
a conditional sale, and, accordingly, praying that an order be
issued in plaintiff's favor for the consolidation of ownership in and
to the aforementioned property.
2.) In her answer to the complaint, Mrs. Gayon alleged that:
- her husband died in 1954, long before the institution of this case;
- the deed is fictitious, for the signature is not hers;
- neither she nor her deceased husband had ever executed "any
document of whatever nature in plaintiff's favor";
- the complaint is malicious and had embarrassed her and her
children;
- the heirs had to employ the services of counsel for a fee of
P500.00 and incurred expenses of at least P200.00;

being a brother of the deceased Silvestre Gayon, plaintiff did not

exert efforts for the amicable settlement of the case before filing
his complaint.

3.) She prayed, therefore, that the same be dismissed and that plaintiff
be sentenced to pay damages. She filed another motion to dismiss,
reproducing substantially the averments made in her answer and
stressing that, in view of the death of Silvestre Gayon, there is a
"necessity of amending the complaint to suit the genuine facts on
record."
4.) LC dismissed the complaint on the ground that Silvestre, the
absolute owner of the property, is dead and his wife has nothing to
do with the land. MR denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUES: W/N the order is manifestly erroneous
RULING + RATIO: Yes, said order is manifestly erroneous and must be set
aside.
First, it is not true that Mrs. Gayon has nothing to do with the land for she is
the widow of the deceased and therefore, she is one of his compulsory
heirs and has, accordingly, an interest in the property in question.
Second, her own motion to dismiss indicated merely "a necessity of
amending the complaint," to the end that the other successors be made
parties in this case. She also alleged, that the "heirs cannot represent the
dead defendant, unless there is a declaration of heirship." Inasmuch,
however, as succession takes place, by operation of law, "from the moment
of the death of the decedent" and "(t)he inheritance includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death," it
follows that if his heirs were included as defendants in this case, they would
be sued, not as "representatives" of the decedent, but as owners of an
aliquot interest in the property in question, even if the precise extent of their
interest may still be undetermined and they have derived it from the decent.
Hence, they may be sued without a previous declaration of heirship, provided
there is no pending special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
decedent.
Third, As regards plaintiff's failure to seek a compromise, as an alleged
obstacle to the present case, Art. 222 of our 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.
Czar Paguio

It is noteworthy that the impediment arising from this provision applies to

suits "filed or maintained between members of the same family." 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.
Mrs. Gayon is plaintiff's sister-in-law, whereas her children are his nephews
and/or nieces. Inasmuch as none of them is included in the enumeration
contained in said Art. 217 which should be construed strictly, it being an
exception to the general rule and Silvestre Gayon must necessarily be
excluded as party in the case at bar, it follows that the same 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.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby set aside
and the case remanded to the lower court for the inclusion, as defendant or
defendants therein, of the administrator or executor of the estate of Silvestre
Gayon, if any, in lieu of the decedent, or, in the absence of such administrator
or executor, of the heirs of the deceased Silvestre Gayon, and for further
proceedings, not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this
instance against defendant-appellee, Genoveva de Gayon. It is so ordered.

Czar Paguio

respondents and ordered the petitioners to vacate the same due to

their refusal to deliver to them the ownership and possession of
such.
ISSUES: W/N the Court had erred in denying plaintiffs claim of ownership

MENDEZ vs EUGENIA (1977)

Petitioner: ZOILA MENDEZ, RAFAEL MENDEZ, and MATILDE BIONSON
Respondent: MAXIMO, EUGENIA JUANA, FORTUNATA, PRUDENCIA,
ROMAN, ANECITA and MARIA, all surnamed BIONSON and HON.
ALFREDO C. LAYA, Judge, Court of First of Cebu, Branch XII
Ponencia: Fernandez, J.
FACTS:
1.) Petitioners Mendez and Bionson, together with ten (10) other
persons filed in the CFI an action against the respondent Bionsons,
for partition of two parcels of land located in Oslob, Cebu. It was
praved in the complaint that judgment be rendered declaring the
petitioners, as the lawful owners of one third (1/3) of each parcel of
land; and declaring plaintiffs Bionson, as the lawful owners of
another one-third (1/3) of each of the said properties; declaring
defendants as the owners of the remaining one-third (1/3) of each of
the properties and ordering the physical partition of said parcels of
land into three (3) equal, parts, and each part to be assigned to the
specific declared owners.
2.) The defendants alleged in their answer that they are the absolute
and exclusive owners of the two (2) parcels of land and that the
plaintiffs have no cause of action against them. As counterclaim, the
defendants asked for moral damages and for the agreed monthly
rental of P10.00 and the rentals in arrears for the last ten (10)
months of the house owned by Antonio Bionson rented and occupied
by Mendez, as well as that portion of the said land leased to Matilde
Bionson and occupied by her house and/or to vacate the premises.

RULING + RATIO: NO. It is clear that the respondents were declared as the
owners of the land in question. It is also true that their counterclaim was also
dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. However, the dismissal of the
counterclaim cannot affect the rights of the private respondents on the two
(2) parcels of land in question because said counterclaim referred only to the
demand for moral damages, rentals and attorney's fees. As owners of the
land in question, the private respondents have a right to the possession
thereof and have the right of action against the holder and possessor of the
land in order to recover it.
Respondents alleged in their complaint that they exerted diligent efforts to
arrive at an amicable settlement or compromise to the extent of asking the
intervention of local municipal officials. The petitioners then may no longer
assign as error failure of the trial court to dismiss the case for alleged lack of
earnest efforts of the private respondents to settle the case amicably.
Moreover, the parties are not members of the same family as provided in
Article 217, Civil Code of the Philippines which reads:
ART 217. 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.
The parties are collateral relatives who are not brothers and sisters. The trial
court did not commit the errors assigned.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the petitioners .

3.) CFI rendered judgment in favor of defendants for failure of the

plaintiffs to prove their claim on the two parcels. Such decision
became final and executory.
4.) The private respondents filed an action for recovery of possession
and ownership of one of the parcels of land against the petitioners.
5.) During the pre-trial, the parties asked for judgment on the pleadings.
The courts reiterated that the property in question belongs to
Czar Paguio

RULING + RATIO: Yes, the Judge is correct.

MAGBALETA vs GONONG (1977)

Petitioner: RUFINO MAGBALETA, ROMANA B. MAGBALETA, AND
SUSANA G. BALDOVI
Respondent: HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG AND CATALINO MAGBALETA
Ponencia: Barredo, J.
FACTS:
1.) Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
with preliminary injunction, against the orders of respondent judge in
denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed against them,
alleging that:
-

the private respondent is the brother of petitioner and the

husband of the other petitioner

the parcel of land, covered by a Free Patent Title in the name of

Rufino, was declared to be the property of private respondent,
who claims in said complaint that the third petitioner is trying to
take possession of said land from his representative, contending
she had bought the same from the spouses Rufino and Romana

While indeed it is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than
a litigation between members of the same family hence, 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,
these considerations do not, however, weigh enough to make it imperative
that such efforts to compromise should be a jurisdictional pre-requisite for the
maintenance of an action whenever a stranger to the family is a party thereto,
whether as a necessary or indispensable one.
It is not always that one who is alien to the family would be willing to suffer
the inconvenience of, much less relish, the delay and the complications that
wranglings between or among relatives more often than not entail. It is
neither practical nor fair that the determination of the rights of a stranger to
the family who just happened to have innocently acquired some kind of
interest in any right or property disputed among its members should be made
to depend on the way the latter would settle their differences among
themselves. We find no cause in the reason for being of the provisions relied
upon by petitioners to give it broader scope than the literal import thereof
warrants.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed and the restraining
order issued on November 3, 1976 is hereby lifted. Costs against petitioners.
(Report of the Code Commission)

said orders having been issued allegedly in violation of Article

222 of the Civil Code and Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court, there being no allegation in respondent's complaint that
his suit, being between members of the same family, earnest
efforts towards a compromise have been made before the same
was filed.

2.) Respondent judge premised his refusal to dismiss the complaint

upon the sole ground that the third petitioner Baldovi, the alleged
buyer of the land in dispute, is a stranger. Hence the legal provisions
abovementioned do not apply.
ISSUES: W/N the ruling of the respondent judge is correct
Czar Paguio

HONTIVEROS vs RTC (1999)

Petitioner:
SPOUSES
AUGUSTO
HONTIVEROS
and
MARIA
HONTIVEROS
Respondent: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 25, Iloilo City and
SPOUSES GREGORIO HONTIVEROS and TEODORA AYSON
Ponencia: Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
1.) Petitioners spouses Hontiveros, filed a complaint for damages
against private respondents Hontiveros and Ayson before the RTC of
Iloilo. In said complaint, petitioners alleged that:
- they are the owners of a parcel of land in Capiz, as shown by
OCT, pursuant to a decision of the IAC in a previous land
registration case;
- the petitioners were deprived of income from the land as a result
of the filing of the land registration case;
- such income consisted of rentals from tenants of the land in the
amount of P66,000.00 per year from 1968 to 1987, and
P595,000.00 per year thereafter; and
- private respondents filed the land registration case and withheld
possession of the land from petitioners in bad faith
2.) Respondents, on the other hand, denied that they were married and
alleged that respondent Hontiveros was a widower while respondent
Ayson was single. They denied that they had deprived petitioners of
possession of and income from the land. On the contrary, they
alleged that:
- possession of the property in question had already been
transferred to the petitioners
- since then, petitioners have been directly receiving rentals from
the tenants of the land;
- the complaint failed to state a cause of action since it did not
allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise had been
made, considering that petitioner Augusto Hontiveros and private
respondent Gregorio Hontiveros are brothers;

the decision of the IAC in Land Registration Case was null and
void since it was based upon a ground which was not passed
upon by the trial court;
the petitioners claim for damages was barred by prescription
there were no rentals due since private respondent Hontiveros
was a possessor in good faith and for value; and
private respondent Ayson had nothing to do with the case as she
was not married to private respondent Gregorio Hontiveros and
did not have any proprietary interest in the subject property.

3.) Private respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and for
an order against petitioners to pay damages to private respondents
by way of counterclaim, as well as reconveyance of the subject land
to private respondents.
4.) Petitioners filed an Amended Complaint to insert an allegation that
earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made between the
parties but the same were unsuccessful. The respondents denied
that earnest efforts were made in their counterclaim.
5.) The trial court denied petitioners motion; however, it also dismissed
the case on the ground that the complaint was not verified as
required by Art. 151 of the Family Code and, therefore, it did not
believe that earnest efforts had been made to arrive at a
compromise. Furthermore, the submission of the plaintiffs, assuming
no such earnest efforts were made, that the same is not necessary
or jurisdictional in the light of the ruling in the previous case is not
applicable since Teodora Ayson is not shown to be really the wife of
Gregorio and that she has not been shown to have acquired any
proprietary interest in the land, is not applicable to the case at bar.
6.) Petitioners moved for MR, which was denied. Hence, this petition for
review on certiorari.

ISSUES: W/N the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that
it does not allege under oath that earnest efforts toward a compromise were
made prior to the filing thereof as required by article 151 of the family code
RULING + RATIO: Yes, the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners
complaint on the ground that, although it alleged that earnest efforts had
been made toward the settlement of the case but they proved futile, the
complaint was not verified for which reason the trial court could not believe
the veracity of the allegation.
Czar Paguio

The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint. The
verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance
that matters which are alleged are true and correct. The court may simply
order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served.

Furthermore, religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given

any legal effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, private respondent Ayson,
who is described in the complaint as the spouse of respondent Hontiveros,
and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, who is admittedly the spouse of petitioner
Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers to the Hontiveros family, for
purposes of Art. 151.

Art. 151 provides: 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. It if is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be
dismissed.

Other issue: CA daw dapat. But they were wrong because this was filed
pursuant to Rule 45. The rule, therefore, is that direct appeals to this Court
from the trial court on questions of law have to be through the filing of a
petition for review on certiorari.

This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of
compromise under the Civil Code.
The inclusion of private respondent Ayson as defendant and petitioner Maria
Hontiveros as plaintiff takes the case out of the ambit of Art. 151 of the
Family Code. Under this provision, the phrase members of the same family
refers to the husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and
descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood. Whenever
a stranger is a party in a case involving family members, the requisite
showing of earnest efforts to compromise is no longer mandatory.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Order,

dated November 23, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25
is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

Czar Paguio