G.R. No. 125465 . June 29, 1999. SPOUSES AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS and MARIA HONTIVEROS, petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 25, Iloilo City and SPOUSES GREGORIO HONTIVEROS and TEODORA AYSON, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioners, spouses Augusto and Maria Hontiveros, filed a complaint for damages against private respondents, Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson. They alleged that they were the owners of a parcel of land in Capiz, as confirmed by a 1984 Intermediate Appellate Court decision, and that they were deprived of income from the land due to the bad faith filing of a land registration case by Gregorio. Private respondents, in their answer, denied the material allegations, asserted that possession had been delivered to petitioners via a writ of possession in 1985, and raised affirmative defenses including prescription, good faith, and lack of cause of action for failure to allege prior earnest efforts for a compromise between the brothers Augusto and Gregorio.
Petitioners subsequently filed an amended complaint to include the required allegation of unsuccessful earnest efforts toward a compromise. Private respondents again denied this allegation. Petitioners then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the answer failed to tender an issue. The trial court denied the motion, finding issues were tendered, but simultaneously dismissed the case sua sponte. It held the amended complaint was defective for lack of verification as required by Article 151 of the Family Code and expressed disbelief that earnest efforts were actually made.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code regarding a verified allegation of earnest efforts toward a compromise.

RULING

No, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case. The legal logic is twofold. First, the trial court improperly dismissed the case sua sponte on a ground not raised in a motion to dismiss. A motion for judgment on the pleadings assumes the pleading’s sufficiency; it does not authorize the court to independently evaluate and dismiss based on perceived substantive deficiencies not asserted by the opposing party. Dismissal on such a ground violated petitioners’ right to due process.
Second, and more critically, the requirement under Article 151 for prior earnest efforts toward a compromise applies only to suits between members of the same family. The provision enumerates specific relationships, confined to those related by consanguinity or affinity within certain degrees. Applying established jurisprudence, the Court clarified that relationship by affinity does not extend to the spouses of blood relatives. Therefore, petitioner Maria Hontiveros (spouse of Augusto) and respondent Teodora Ayson (alleged spouse of Gregorio) are considered strangers to the Hontiveros family for this purpose. Since the suit involved these spouses as indispensable parties, Article 151’s requirement for a verified allegation of compromise efforts was inapplicable. The case must proceed to trial on the merits.