G.R. No. L-23102; April 24, 1967
CECILIO MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza filed Civil Case No. 3436 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against her husband, Cecilio Mendoza. The complaint alleged they were married on September 2, 1953, lived together until July 14, 1954, when Cecilio left for the United States to study and practice his profession. Since then, he allegedly abandoned and neglected her, failing to provide support despite demands. Luisa claimed to be pregnant, sickly, and without income, while Cecilio was employed in the U.S. earning about $200 monthly and owned lands in Nueva Ecija. Cecilio moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, which was denied. He then filed an answer with a counterclaim, challenging the validity of the marriage. Later, he filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made before filing the suit, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code. The Court of First Instance refused to entertain this second motion. Cecilio then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to stop the trial court from proceeding. The Court of Appeals initially issued the preliminary injunction but later denied the writ of prohibition and dissolved the injunction. Cecilio’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action due to its lack of an allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made before filing the suit, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code for suits between family members.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court held that while Article 222 of the Civil Code generally requires that earnest efforts toward a compromise be made and alleged before a suit between family members is filed or maintained, this requirement does not apply to the case at bar. The complaint involved a claim for future support, which under Article 2035(4) of the Civil Code cannot be the subject of a valid compromise. Additionally, the answer raised an issue regarding the validity of the marriage, which under Article 2035(2) is also non-compromisable. Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues, a showing of previous efforts to compromise would be superfluous. The Court noted that even if the complaint included a claim for support in arrears (which might be compromisable), the existence of a valid cause of action for future support, to which Article 222 does not apply, is sufficient to sustain the complaint. Therefore, the complaint should not be dismissed. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.