G.R. No. L-44903. April 22, 1977.
RUFINO MAGBALETA, ROMANA B. MAGBALETA, AND SUSANA G. BALDOVI, petitioners, vs. HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG AND CATALINO MAGBALETA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Catalino Magbaleta, brother of petitioner Rufino Magbaleta, filed a complaint against the petitioners. The suit sought to declare a parcel of land, covered by a Free Patent Title in Rufino’s name, as Catalino’s property. The complaint alleged that the third petitioner, Susana G. Baldovi, was attempting to take possession of the land from Catalino’s representative, claiming she had purchased it from the spouses Rufino and Romana Magbaleta.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, invoking Article 222 of the Civil Code and Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. They contended the suit was among members of the same family, as Catalino is Rufino’s brother and Romana’s brother-in-law, and the complaint lacked the requisite allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made before filing. Respondent Judge Arsenio M. Gonong denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the legal provisions did not apply because one defendant, Susana G. Baldovi, the alleged buyer, was a stranger to the family.

ISSUE

Whether a complaint must be dismissed for failure to allege prior earnest efforts toward a compromise when the suit involves a dispute among family members but also impleads a stranger to the family as a party-defendant.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the respondent judge’s order and dismissed the petition. The Court affirmed that the legal requirement for prior earnest efforts toward a compromise under Article 222 of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court does not apply when a stranger to the family is a party to the suit. The Court acknowledged the Code Commission’s rationale that intra-family litigation breeds deep bitterness and should be preceded by compromise efforts. However, this policy consideration does not extend to cases where a non-family member is involved, whether as a necessary or indispensable party.
The Court reasoned that it is neither practical nor fair to condition the adjudication of a stranger’s rights upon the outcome of settlement negotiations among the family members. A stranger who innocently acquires an interest in property disputed within a family should not be subjected to the delays and complications of family wranglings. The literal import of the law limits the compromise requirement to suits exclusively among family members. Therefore, the inclusion of Susana G. Baldovi, an alleged buyer and stranger, rendered the compromise requirement inapplicable, making the denial of the motion to dismiss correct. The restraining order was lifted, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.