G.R. No. L-25609 November 27, 1968
MARGARET ANN WAINRIGHT VERSOZA, JOSE MA. VERSOZA, JR., CHARLES JOHN VERSOZA and VIRGINIA FELICE VERSOZA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JOSE MA. VERSOZA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On March 4, 1964, a verified complaint (later amended) was filed by Margaret Ann Wainright Versoza and her three minor children against her husband, Jose Ma. Versoza. The complaint sought P1,500.00 monthly support, support in arrears, damages, custody of children, and support pendente lite. The grounds alleged were that the defendant had abandoned the plaintiffs without providing support and was maintaining illicit relations with another woman. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was premature and/or stated no cause of action because it failed to allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made before filing the suit, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code for suits between family members. The lower court, on February 22, 1965, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of such an allegation. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, attaching an affidavit from their counsel stating that pre-suit settlement efforts had been made but failed. The court denied this motion on March 30, 1965. Plaintiffs then filed a second motion for reconsideration and sought to admit a second amended complaint that included the required averment regarding failed compromise efforts. The lower court denied this second motion on June 22, 1965. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal orders.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made before filing the suit, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code, considering that the action includes a claim for future support.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the lower court and remanded the case with instructions to admit the second amended complaint. The Court held that while Article 222 of the Civil Code and Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court generally require that earnest efforts toward a compromise and their failure be alleged in a complaint between family members as a condition precedent, this requirement does not apply to claims for future support. Article 2035 of the Civil Code explicitly states that no compromise upon the question of future support shall be valid. Since the present action included a claim for future support, which by law cannot be validly compromised, a showing of previous efforts to compromise it is superfluous and not a condition precedent to filing the suit. Therefore, the complaint stated a valid cause of action for future support despite the lack of the Article 222 allegation. The Court further ruled that the lower court should have allowed the amendment of the complaint to cure the defect, as the defect was curable and the amendment was offered before a responsive pleading was served. The case of Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals was cited as controlling.