Family as an Institution, A149-151 Family Code

1. Concept

Art. 149. The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect. (216a, 218a)

Art. 50. Family relations include those:

(1) Between husband and wife;

(2) Between parents and children;

(3) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood. (217a)

2. Earnest compromise prior to suit

Art. 151. 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 same case must be dismissed.

This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code. (222a)

Related provisions:

Article 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:

(1) The civil status of persons;

(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;

(3) Any ground for legal separation;

(4) Future support;

(5) The jurisdiction of courts;

(6) Future legitime.

[M]ere suspicion or doubt on the part of the trial court as to the truth of the allegation that earnest efforts had been made toward a compromise but the parties’ efforts proved unsuccessful is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only if it is later shown that such efforts had not really been exerted would the court be justified in dismissing the action. (Sps. Hontiveros v. RTC, G.R. No. 125465, June 29, 1999, Per Mendoza, J.)

Ty v. Chua, G.R. No. 212598, September 29, 2021, Per Lopez, J., J.:

• The petition to annul the new/owner’s duplicate title was among members of the same family. The petitioners are the mother and siblings of the respondent who, being the registered owner, obtained the new/owner’s duplicate title. The petition did not allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made. However, the petitioners claim that there was actual compliance with the condition precedent, through: (i) the court-annexed mediation in the LRC case (involving the same parties and the same property), and (ii) the barangay conciliation proceeding between Antonio Gaw Chua and Vicente Gaw Chua, involving the former’s complaint for physical injury, where the issue on the family dispute over the property was raised.

• We rule that the validity of a reconstituted title is not subject to compromise. Therefore, Article 151 of the Family Code, as a ground for dismissal without prejudice under Section 1(j) of Rule 16, is not applicable.

a. Civil actions only

Vda. de Manalo v. CA, G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2011, Per De Leon, JR., J.:

• [Article 22 of the Old Civil Code; now Article 151 of the Family Code] is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term “suit” that it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. A civil action is thus 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. Besides, 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.

• It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of action as in fact no defendant was impleaded therein. The Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The petitioners therein (private respondents herein) 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.

b. Strangers excludes Article 151 application

Guerrero v. RTC, G.R. No. 109068, January 10, 1994, Bellosillo, J.:

• As early as two decades ago, we already ruled in Gayon v. Gayon that the enumeration of “brothers and sisters” as members of the same family does not comprehend “sisters-in-law”. In that case, then Chief Justice Concepcion emphasized that “sisters-in-law” (hence, also “brothers-in-law”) are not listed under Art. 217 of the New Civil Code as members of the same family. Since Art. 150 of the Family Code repeats essentially the same enumeration of “members of the family”, we find no reason to alter existing jurisprudence on the matter. Consequently, the court a quo erred in ruling that petitioner Guerrero, being a brother-in-law of private respondent Hernando, was required to exert earnest efforts towards a compromise before filing the present suit.

Sps. Hontiveros v. RTC, G.R. No. 125465, June 29, 1999, Per Mendoza, J.:

• Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family Code does not apply in this case since the suit is not exclusively among family members… They argue that since private respondent Ayson is admittedly a stranger to the Hontiveros family, the case is not covered by the requirements of Art. 151 of the Family Code.

• We agree with petitioners. 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…

• 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.

c. Procedural

True, 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. However, the failure of a party to comply with this condition precedent is not a jurisdictional defect. If the opposing party fails to raise such defect in a motion to dismiss, such defect is deemed waived. (Romero v. Singson, G.R. No. 2000969, August 3, 2015, Per Del Castillo, J.)