G.R. No. 109068 January 10, 1994
GAUDENCIO GUERRERO, petitioner, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOCOS NORTE, BR. XVI, JUDGE LUIS B. BELLO, JR., PRESIDING, and PEDRO G. HERNANDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gaudencio Guerrero filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. 10084-16) against private respondent Pedro G. Hernando to recover a parcel of land. The complaint did not allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted and failed. Private respondent did not file a motion to dismiss nor raise this alleged defect in his answer. During the pre-trial conference, respondent Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr. noted that the parties were brothers-in-law, being married to half-sisters. Based on this relationship, the judge gave petitioner five days to file an amended complaint to allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise were made but failed, considering this deficiency a jurisdictional defect. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that brothers by affinity are not members of the same family requiring such efforts, and that private respondent was precluded from raising the issue. The motion was denied, with the court holding the failure to allege earnest efforts was jurisdictional. The judge warned that unless the complaint was amended within five days, the case would be dismissed. Petitioner did not amend the complaint, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner appeals this dismissal.

ISSUE

1. Whether brothers by affinity are considered members of the same family under Article 217(4) and Article 222 of the New Civil Code, and Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, requiring earnest efforts towards a compromise before a suit between them may be instituted and maintained.
2. Whether the absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted, which failed, is a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

1. No. Brothers by affinity (brothers-in-law) are not considered members of the same family as contemplated by law. The Supreme Court, citing Gayon v. Gayon, ruled that the enumeration of “brothers and sisters” as members of the same family in Article 217 of the New Civil Code does not comprehend “sisters-in-law” or “brothers-in-law.” Since Article 150 of the Family Code repeats essentially the same enumeration, existing jurisprudence remains unchanged. Consequently, the trial court erred in ruling that petitioner, being a brother-in-law of private respondent, was required to exert earnest efforts towards a compromise before filing the suit.
2. The Court found it unnecessary to rule definitively on the second issue as the first issue was dispositive. However, it cited jurisprudence (O’Laco v. Co Cho Chit and Mendoza v. Court of Appeals) stating that the attempt to compromise and its failure is a condition precedent for suits between family members, and the absence of such allegation can be assailed at any stage for lack of cause of action. The Court clarified that the dismissal could not be sustained under Rule 17 for failure to comply with a court order, as the orders were based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and petitioner was not bound to comply. The orders merely “admonished” amendment and did not contain a clear directive.
The petition was GRANTED. The appealed Orders were SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court was directed to continue with Civil Case No. 10084-16.