View full case

HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS v. JUANA GONZALES

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for annulment of a Deed of Donation due to the petitioner's failure to exert earnest efforts towards a compromise. The late Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr., who was previously married to Capitolina Aguilar, had seven children with her. After Capitolina's death, Dr. Favis entered into a common-law marriage with Juana Gonzales and had one child with her. They eventually got married in 1974, and Dr. Favis acknowledged their child as his legitimate child. Dr. Favis died intestate in 1995, leaving several properties. Prior to his death, he allegedly executed a Deed of Donation in 1994, transferring and conveying properties to his grandchildren with Juana. Dr. Favis' children with Capitolina filed an action for the annulment of the Deed of Donation, inventory, liquidation, and partition of property, claiming that it prejudiced their legitime. The trial court annulled the Deed of Donation, declared Juana and their child as compulsory heirs, and ruled that the estate would result in intestacy. The Court of Appeals dismissed the nullification case for the petitioner's failure to make an averment that earnest efforts towards a compromise had been made, as required by the Family Code.

The petitioners in this case filed a motion for reconsideration after the Court of Appeals dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeals justified the dismissal by stating that the case is subject to compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code. The petitioners argued that the case does not involve future legitime and therefore cannot be subject to compromise. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, stating that the case does not involve a testator and compulsory heir and that the properties in question are legitime, not future legitime. The petitioners then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, raising several arguments against the dismissal of their complaint. The respondents, in their comment, defended the dismissal and did not address the merits of the case. The main issue is whether the appellate court can dismiss a complaint for failure to allege earnest efforts towards a compromise. The appellate court relied on Article 151 of the Family Code and Section 1, par. (j), Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court's reliance on these provisions was misplaced and that the grounds for dismissal provided in Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure should be considered.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a suit among members of the same family is a ground for motu proprio dismissal of the claim.

  2. Whether failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a suit among members of the same family is a jurisdictional defect.

  3. Whether the respondents waived the non-jurisdictional defense of absence of required allegation on earnest efforts at a compromise by failing to file a motion to dismiss or raise it as an error in their appeal.

  4. Whether there was a violation of Article 151 of the Family Code regarding the requirement of earnest efforts at a compromise before filing a complaint in court.

  5. Whether or not Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. had full control of his mental faculties at the time of the execution of the Deed of Donation.

  6. Whether or not the execution of the Deed of Donation was in bad faith.

RULING:

  1. Failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a suit among members of the same family is not a ground for motu proprio dismissal of the claim. The four instances when the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim are: lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription of action.

  2. Failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a suit among members of the same family is not a jurisdictional defect but merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action. It does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case.

  3. The court ruled that the respondents waived the non-jurisdictional defense of absence of required allegation on earnest efforts at a compromise by failing to file a motion to dismiss or raise it as an error in their appeal. The proceedings before the trial court ran its full course, with the respondents answering the complaint without filing a motion to dismiss. The appellate court also did not have the authority or basis to order the dismissal of the complaint on its own. Thus, the rule on deemed waiver of non-jurisdictional defense or objection is wholly applicable to the respondents.

  4. The court held that there was no violation of Article 151 of the Family Code regarding the requirement of earnest efforts at a compromise before filing a complaint in court. The facts of the case showed that compromise was never an option for the respondents, as evidenced by their refusal to dismiss the complaint and their insistence on the validity of the donation in their favor. The Pre-trial Order also specifically limited the issues to the validity of the deed and whether the respondents are compulsory heirs. Therefore, the purpose of making sure there is no possibility of compromise has been served.

  5. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. The trial court's finding that Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. was not in full control of his mental faculties at the time of the execution of the Deed of Donation was upheld, as the respondents failed to provide any argument to have it reversed. The fact that the Deed of Donation was executed after Dra. Mercedes Favis left his father's house and the circumstances surrounding Dr. Favis Sr.'s advanced age and various illnesses further supported the conclusion that he was not of sound mind. Thus, the Deed of Donation was declared void.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Motu proprio dismissal of a case is traditionally limited to instances when the court clearly had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or when the plaintiff did not appear during trial, failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or neglected to comply with the rules or with any order of the court.

  • The second sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to dismiss cases motu propio on any of the enumerated grounds, but such dismissal can only proceed from the exemption from the rule on waiver.

  • Failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a suit among members of the same family is not a jurisdictional defect but merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action. It can be cured through amendment to complete the complaint and does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case.

  • A non-jurisdictional defense or objection, such as the absence of a required allegation on earnest efforts at a compromise, can be deemed waived if not raised through a motion to dismiss or in the appeal. This is a mere procedural imperfection that does not affect the court's jurisdiction.

  • Article 151 of the Family Code requires earnest efforts at a compromise before filing a lawsuit within the same family. However, if it can be shown that compromise was never an option, the requirement may be considered fulfilled.

  • A person suffering from Parkinson's disease may not necessarily have full control of his mental faculties.

  • The execution of a document after the departure of a significant person from the residence may indicate an indicia of bad faith on the part of the defendant.

  • The finding of the trial court, if not reversed on appeal, stands as an unreversed factual finding.