Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Acua, G.R. NO. 154132, A!

"S# Alberto Moreno , respondent ( filed with the RTC of Caloocan a complaint against Hiyas Savings and Loan an!, "nc his wife Remedios, the spo#ses $elipe and Maria %we and the Register of &eeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage' He contended that he did not sec#re( sign any loan from petitioner,or e)ec#te any contract of mortgage in its favor* and his his wife was acting in conspiracy with Hiyas and the spo#ses %we, (who were benefited from the loan+, made it appear that he signed the contract of mortgage and he co#ld not have e)ec#ted the contract beca#se he was wor!ing abroad' Hiyas filed a Motion to &ismiss on the gro#nd that private respondent failed to comply with A$%ic&' 151 of $C where it is provided that 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. ,etitioner contends that since the complaint does not contain any fact or averment that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made prior to its instit#tion, then the complaint sho#ld be dismissed for lac! of ca#se of action' Moreno allegedly arg#es that in cases where one of the parties is not a member of the same family as contemplated #nder Art' -./ of $C fail#re to allege in the complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made by the plaintiff before filing the complaint is not a gro#nd for a motion to dismiss' Alberto asserts that since three of the party0defendants are not members of his family the gro#nd relied #pon by Hiyas in its Motion to &ismiss is inapplicable RTC denied motion to dismiss' Co#rt agreed with plaintiff(Moreno+' ,etitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration' RTC again denied motion of partial reconsideration r#ling that fail#re to allege in complaint that earnest effort towards a compromise were made by plaintiff is not a gro#nd for motion to dismiss' ISS()# 1%2 lac! of earnest efforts toward a compromise is a gro#nd for a motion to dismiss in s#its between h#sband and wife when other parties who are strangers to the family are involved in the s#it' H)L*3 +)S. ins%an% ,'%i%ion s-ou&d .' dis/iss'd. petitioner failed to advance

a satisfactory e)planation as to its fail#re to comply with the principle of 4#dicial hierarchy' Article -.- of the $amily Code provides as follows3 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. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed. This r#le shall

not apply to cases which may not be the s#b4ect of compromise #nder the Civil Code' Hence, once a stranger becomes a party to a s#it involving members of the same family, the law no longer ma!es it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper' The Co#rt finds no specific, #ni5#e, or special circ#mstance that wo#ld ma!e the r#ling in Magbaleta as well as in the abovementioned cases inapplicable to s#its involving a h#sband and his wife, as in the present case' "n the first place, Article -.- of the $amily Code and Article 666 of the Civil Code are clear that the provisions apply to s#its involving 7members of the same family7 #nder Article -./ of the $C3 AR". 150' $amily relations incl#de those3 (-+ etween parents and children* etween h#sband and wife* (6+

(8+ Among other ascendants and descendants* and (9+ Among brothers and sisters, whether of the f#ll or half blood' and Article 6-: of the Civil Code3 AR". 211' $amily relations shall incl#de those3 (-+ (6+ etween parent and child* etween h#sband and wife,

(8+ Among other ascendants and their descendants, (9+ Among brothers and sisters' S#ffice it to say that since the Co#rt has r#led that the re5#irement #nder Article -.- of the $amily Code is applicable only in cases which are e)cl#sively between or among members of the same family, it necessarily follows that the same may be invo!ed only by a party who is a member of that same family'