G.R. No. L-42260 April 30, 1979
JOVENCIA DE GUZMAN and FEDERICO RECARIO, petitioners, vs. JUDGE MELENCIO A. GENATO of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch 1, Oroquieta City and AURELIO EN. JUTBA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Aurelio En. Jutba filed a complaint for damages against his wife, petitioner Jovencia de Guzman, and her alleged paramour, petitioner Federico Recario. The complaint sought indemnity for moral damages arising from alleged adulterous acts and for the plaintiff’s share in the fruits of conjugal partnership properties during a period of his illness when his wife administered them. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3056 in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.
Petitioners filed motions to dismiss on two principal grounds. First, they argued the action was a suit between members of the same family, and the complaint lacked the requisite allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made and failed, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code. Second, they contended venue was improperly laid, asserting the case involved real properties located in Manila and Davao City, and thus should have been filed in those locations, not in Misamis Occidental where the plaintiff resided. The respondent judge denied the motions, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss based on the alleged absence of a cause of action for failure to allege earnest efforts at compromise and improper venue.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the first ground, the Court held there was substantial compliance with Article 222 of the Civil Code. The amended complaint explicitly stated that while the plaintiff was ill, the defendants left together and had been living in adultery. It further alleged that the Philippine Constabulary had summoned the defendants for confrontation and arrangement at the plaintiff’s behest, but they refused to appear. These factual allegations sufficiently conveyed that earnest efforts at a compromise had been attempted but failed. The law does not require the literal recital of statutory phrases; allegations conveying the same meaning are adequate.
On the second ground, the Court ruled the action was a personal action, not a real action, and venue was properly laid in Misamis Occidental, the plaintiff’s residence. The plaintiff’s primary prayers were for the recovery of sums of money representing his share in conjugal fruits, reimbursement for expenses, and moral damages. The mere mention of real properties or the ancillary prayer for a preliminary injunction to prevent the wife from selling conjugal assets did not transform the suit into a real action affecting title to or possession of property. The injunction prayer merely related to the husband’s right to administer the conjugal partnership under Article 165 of the Civil Code. Consequently, the general rule on venue for personal actions applied. The respondent judge correctly assumed jurisdiction.