View full case

GAUDENCIO GUERRERO v. RTC OF ILOCOS NORTE

FACTS:

Petitioner Gaudencio Guerrero filed a complaint against private respondent Pedro G. Hernando as an accion publiciana. The complaint did not allege any earnest efforts towards a compromise between the parties. However, Hernando did not file any motion to dismiss or challenge the complaint on this ground in his answer. It was only during the pre-trial conference that the relationship of the parties being brothers-in-law was noted by the judge, who then ordered Guerrero to file an amended complaint to allege the relationship and the failed efforts towards a compromise.

Guerrero moved to reconsider the order, arguing that brothers by affinity are not considered members of the same family. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when Guerrero failed to amend the complaint.

Guerrero appealed the dismissal, raising legal issues regarding the relationship between brothers by affinity, the requirement of earnest efforts towards a compromise, and the jurisdictional implications of failing to allege such efforts in the complaint.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether brothers by affinity are considered members of the same family that requires earnest efforts towards a compromise before a suit may be filed.

  2. Whether the absence of an allegation of earnest efforts towards a compromise in the complaint is a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that brothers by affinity, including brothers-in-law, are not considered members of the same family for the purpose of requiring earnest efforts towards a compromise. The court relied on previous jurisprudence that stated that "sisters-in-law" are not listed as members of the same family under relevant laws. The court found no reason to alter the existing jurisprudence on the matter.

  2. The court also clarified that the requirement of earnest efforts towards a compromise is mandatory, and the complaint or petition must allege such efforts. The absence of this allegation is a ground for dismissal for lack of cause of action. The court rejected the argument that private respondent waived this defect by not moving to dismiss or raising it in the answer.

  3. The court also found that there was no proper directive from the trial court to amend the complaint, and the orders of dismissal were based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the law. Therefore, the court set aside the dismissal orders and directed the trial court to continue with the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family and encourages efforts towards compromise between family members before litigation.

  • Brothers by affinity, including brothers-in-law, are not considered members of the same family requiring earnest efforts towards a compromise.

  • The requirement of earnest efforts towards a compromise is mandatory and the absence of such allegation in the complaint is a ground for dismissal for lack of cause of action.