GR 154132; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154132 . August 31, 2006. HIYAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA, in his capacity as Pairing Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City, and ALBERTO MORENO, Respondents.
FACTS
Alberto Moreno filed a complaint for cancellation of mortgage against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, his wife Remedios Moreno, the spouses Owe, and the Register of Deeds. He alleged that he did not secure a loan from Hiyas, nor did he sign the mortgage contract, as he was abroad; he claimed his wife conspired with Hiyas and the Owes, who benefited from the loan, to forge his signature. Hiyas filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the complaint lacked a cause of action for failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code, which requires earnest efforts toward a compromise before filing suit between family members. Alberto opposed, contending the requirement was inapplicable because three defendants were not family members.
The Regional Trial Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that when a suit involves parties who are strangers to the family, the failure to allege prior compromise efforts is not a ground for dismissal. It cited precedents like Magbaleta v. Gonong. The court also held that only the family member defendant, Remedios Moreno, could invoke Article 151. Hiyas’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss based on the inapplicability of Article 151 of the Family Code to the suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the clear scope of Article 151 of the Family Code, which applies exclusively to suits solely between or among members of the same family as defined in Article 150. The provision aims to preserve family harmony by mandating compromise efforts before litigation. However, this requirement is not applicable when the suit includes parties who are strangers to the family, as the presence of such outsiders negates the purely familial context the law seeks to regulate.
Consequently, since the complaint involved not only the spouses but also Hiyas Bank and the spouses Owe—who are strangers to the Moreno family—the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 did not apply. The trial court correctly followed jurisprudence, such as Magbaleta, which holds that the rule is inoperative when one party is a non-family member. Corollarily, only a party who is a member of the same family can invoke the provision; Hiyas, as a stranger, had no legal standing to demand compliance. Thus, the trial court’s orders were in accordance with law and jurisprudence, not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.