8/13/2019 Hiyas v. Acuna

1/2

Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Acua, G.R. NO. 154132,

A!"S#

Alberto Moreno , respondent ( filed with the RTC of Caloocan a complaint againstHiyas Savings and Loan an!, "nc his wife Remedios, the spo#ses $elipe and Maria

%we and the Register of &eeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage' Hecontended that he did not sec#re sign any loan from petitioner,or e)ec#te anycontract of mortgage in its favor* and his his wife was acting in conspiracy with Hiyasand the spo#ses %we, (who were benefited from the loan+, made it appear that hesigned the contract of mortgage and he co#ld not have e)ec#ted the contract beca#sehe was wor!ing abroad'

Hiyas filed a Motion to &ismiss on the gro#nd that private respondent failed to complywith A$%ic&' 151of $C where it is provided that no suit between members of the samefamily shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that

earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed.etitioner contends that since the complaint does not contain any fact or averment thatearnest efforts toward a compromise had been made prior to its instit#tion, then thecomplaint sho#ld be dismissed for lac! of ca#se of action'

Moreno allegedly arg#es that in cases where one of the parties is not a member of thesame family as contemplated #nder Art' -./ of $C fail#re to allege in the complaintthat earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made by the plaintiff before filingthe complaint is not a gro#nd for a motion to dismiss' Alberto asserts that since threeof the party0defendants are not members of his family the gro#nd relied #pon by Hiyas

in its Motion to &ismiss is inapplicable RTC denied motion to dismiss' Co#rt agreedwith plaintiff(Moreno+' etitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration' RTC againdenied motion of partial reconsideration r#ling that fail#re to allege in complaint thatearnest effort towards a compromise were made by plaintiff is not a gro#nd for motionto dismiss'

ISS()#1%2 lac! of earnest efforts toward a compromise is a gro#nd for a motion todismiss in s#its between h#sband and wife when other parties who are strangers tothe family are involved in the s#it'

H)L*3+)S. ins%an% '%i%ion s-ou&d ' dis/iss'd. petitioner failed to advancea satisfactory e)planation as to its fail#re to comply with the principle of 4#dicialhierarchy' Article -.- of the $amily Code provides as follows3

No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it shouldappear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward acompromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown thatno such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed. This r#le shall

8/13/2019 Hiyas v. Acuna

2/2

not apply to cases which may not be the s#b4ect of compromise #nder the CivilCode' Hence, once a stranger becomes a party to a s#it involving members ofthe same family, the law no longer ma!es it a condition precedent that earnestefforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper'

The Co#rt finds no specific, #ni5#e, or special circ#mstance that wo#ld ma!ethe r#ling in Magbaletaas well as in the abovementioned cases inapplicable tos#its involving a h#sband and his wife, as in the present case' "n the first place,

Article -.- of the $amily Code and Article 666 of the Civil Code are clear thatthe provisions apply to s#its involving 7members of the same family7 #nder

Article -./ of the $C3

AR". 150' $amily relations incl#de those3 (-+ etween h#sband and wife* (6+etween parents and children*

(8+ Among other ascendants and descendants* and (9+ Among brothers andsisters, whether of the f#ll or half blood'

and Article 6-: of the Civil Code3

AR". 21' $amily relations shall incl#de those3 (-+ etween h#sband and wife,(6+ etween parent and child*

(8+ Among other ascendants and their descendants, (9+ Among brothers andsisters'

S#ffice it to say that since the Co#rt has r#led that the re5#irement #nder Article-.- of the $amily Code is applicable only in cases which are e)cl#sivelybetween or among members of the same family, it necessarily follows that thesame may be invo!ed only by a party who is a member of that same family'