Hontiveros Vs RTC Digest

HONTIVEROS VS.
RTC
FACTS:
On December 3, 1990, petitioners, the spouses Augusto and Maria

Hontiveros, filed a complaint for damages against private respondents
Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson before the Regional Trial Court
of Iloilo City, Branch 25, where it was docketed as Civil Case No.
19504. In said complaint, petitioners alleged that they are the owners
of a parcel of land, in the town of Jamindan, Province of Capiz, as
shown by OCT No. 0-2124, issued pursuant to the decision of the
Intermediate. Appellate Court, dated April 12, 1984. That petitioners
were deprived of income from the land as a result of the filing of the
land registration case; that such income consisted of rentals from
tenants of the land in the amount of P66,000.00 per year from 1968 to
1987, and P595,000.00 per year thereafter; and that private
respondents filed the land registration case and withheld possession of
the land from petitioners in bad faith.
In their answer, private respondents denied that they were married

and alleged that private respondent Hontiveros was a widower while
private respondent Ayson was single. They denied that they had
deprived petitioners of possession of and income from the land. On the
contrary, they alleged that possession of the property in question had
already been transferred to petitioners on August 7, 1985, by virtue of
a writ of possession, dated July 18, 1985, issued by the clerk of court of
the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Mambusao, the return thereof having
been received by petitioners' counsel; that since then, petitioners have
been directly receiving rentals from the tenants of the land, that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action since it did not allege that
earnest efforts towards a compromise had been made, considering
that petitioner Augusto Hontiveros and private respondent Gregorio
Hontiveros are brothers; that the decision of the Intermediate
Appellate Court in Land Registration Case No. N-581-25 was null and
void since it was based upon a ground which was not passed upon by
the trial court; that petitioners' claim for damages was barred by
prescription with respect to claims before 1984; that there were no
rentals due since private respondent Hontiveros was a possessor in
good faith and for value; and that private respondent Ayson had
nothing to do with the case as she was not married to private
respondent Gregorio Hontiveros and did not have any proprietary
interest in the subject property. Private respondents prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint and for an order against petitioners to pay
damages to private respondents by way of counterclaim, as well as
reconveyance of the subject land to private respondents.
ISSUE: The Regional Trial Court palpably erred in dismissing the
complaint on the ground that it does not allege under oath that earnest
efforts toward a compromise were made prior to the filing thereof as
required by Article 151 of the Family Code.
HELD:
The trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint on the

ground that, although it alleged that earnest efforts had been made
toward the settlement of the case but they proved futile, the complaint
was not verified for which reason the trial court could not believe the
veracity of the allegation.
The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does not

affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
complaint. The verification is merely a formal requirement intended to
secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and
correct. If the court doubted the veracity of the allegations regarding
efforts made to settle the case among members of the same family, it
could simply have ordered petitioners to verify them. As this Court has
already ruled, the court may simply order the correction of unverified
pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in
order that the ends of justice may be served. Otherwise, mere
suspicion or doubt on the part of the trial court as to the truth of the
allegation that earnest efforts had been made toward a compromise
but the parties' efforts proved unsuccessful is not a ground for the
dismissal of an action. Only if it is later shown that such efforts had not
really been exerted would the court be justified in dismissing the
action.
Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family Code

does not apply in this case since the suit is not exclusively among the
family members. Citing several cases decided by this Court, petitioners
claim that whenever a stranger is a party in the case involving the
family members, the requisite showing the earnest efforts to
compromise is no longer mandatory. They argue that since private
respondent Ayson is admittedly a stranger to the Hontiveros family,
the case is not covered by the requirements of Art. 151 of the Family
Code.
We agree with petitioners. The inclusion of private respondent

Ayson as defendant and petitioner Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff takes
the case out of the ambit of Art. 151 of the Family Code. Under this
provision, the phrase "members of the same family" refers to the
husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants,
and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood.19 As this Court held
in Guerrero v. RTC, Ilocos Norte, Br. XVI:
Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given

any legal effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, private respondent
Ayson, who is described in the complaint as the spouse of respondent
Hontiveros, and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, who is admittedly the
spouse of petitioner Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers to
the Hontiveros family, for purposes of Art. 151.

Hontiveros Vs RTC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hontiveros Vs RTC Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hontiveros Vs RTC Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HONTIVEROS VS.

On December 3, 1990, petitioners, the spouses Augusto and Maria

In their answer, private respondents denied that they were married

The trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint on the

The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does not

Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art. 151 of the Family Code

We agree with petitioners. The inclusion of private respondent

Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given

You might also like