View full case

JOSE Z. MORENO v. RENE M. KAHN

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of two parcels of land between petitioner Jose Moreno and his sister, respondent Consuelo Moreno Kahn-Haire. Jose asserts that he and his family have been occupying the lands as lessees since May 1998. In April or May 2003, Consuelo and her children offered to sell the lands to Jose for US$200,000, and he accepted the offer. Over time, Jose made partial payments to Consuelo's children, leaving a balance of US$120,000 payable to Consuelo.

However, in July 2010, Consuelo decided to cancel their agreement and notified Jose that the previous payments would be treated as rental payments instead. Despite Jose's demand for the sale to proceed, Consuelo ignored him. In the meantime, Consuelo and her children sold their shares over the lands to another nephew named Rene. Upon finding out about the sale, Jose demanded his right to the lands, but his demands were disregarded.

Consequently, Jose filed a complaint for specific performance and cancellation of titles with damages, seeking resolution of the dispute. However, the trial court dismissed Jose's complaint due to his purported failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code, which mandates that earnest efforts be exerted before filing suits among family members. Jose argued that Article 151 does not apply to his case and that he had already fulfilled the requirement. The trial court denied his motion for reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals concurred with the dismissal. As a result, Jose filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, asserting that the dismissal of his complaint was improper since non-compliance with Article 151 is not a jurisdictional defect.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellate court can dismiss the order of dismissal of the complaint for failure to allege earnest efforts towards a compromise.

  2. Whether the failure to comply with the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is a jurisdictional defect.

  3. Whether or not the suit filed by the petitioner is exclusively between or among "members of the same family" under Article 151 of the Family Code.

  4. Whether or not the inclusion of "strangers" to the suit renders the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 unnecessary.

RULING:

  1. The appellate court committed an error in dismissing the complaint. The appellate court's reliance on Article 151 of the Family Code and Section 1, par. (j), Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is misplaced. The dismissal of the complaint based on failure to allege earnest efforts towards a compromise can only be invoked by the opposing party at the earliest opportunity, such as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. It cannot be dismissed motu proprio by the court. The non-compliance with this provision is deemed waived if not raised in a timely motion or pleading.

  2. Failure to comply with the earnest effort requirement is not a jurisdictional defect but a condition precedent. It is not a ground for the court to dismiss the claim motu proprio. Only specific instances mentioned in Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure can warrant a motu proprio dismissal, such as lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription of action. The defect can be waived if not raised promptly by the opposing party.

  3. The Court finds Article 151 of the Family Code inapplicable to the case since the suit is not exclusively between or among "members of the same family."

  4. The Court concludes that the suit is beyond the ambit of Article 151 of the Family Code and that the earnest effort requirement is unnecessary.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Non-compliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is not a jurisdictional defect but a condition precedent.

  • Failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a complaint among members of the same family is deemed a defect in the statement of a cause of action, not a ground for objection against the suit.

  • The objection of failure to allege a failed attempt at a compromise in a suit among members of the same family is waivable if not raised in a timely motion to dismiss or in the answer.

  • Motu proprio dismissal by the court is only warranted in specific instances mentioned in Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, such as lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription of action.

  • Article 151 of the Family Code applies only to suits exclusively between or among "members of the same family."

  • The earnest effort requirement under Article 151 is no longer a condition precedent in cases where a stranger becomes a party to the suit.

  • Article 150 of the Family Code enumerates the family relations to which the earnest effort requirement applies.

  • The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to Article 151, where the express mention of certain family relations excludes all others.