XI.
The Family
B. Family Relations FC 150 - 151
Second Division
G.R. No. 217744
July 30, 2018
Jose Moreno
vs.
Rene Kahn
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Nature of the Action:
Petition for review on certiorari
Facts:
Jose and his family have been occupying the two parcels of land co-owned
by his full-blooded sister, respondent Khan and his nephews and nieces.
Respondents offered to sell to Jose the subject lands, which Jose accepted. Jose
then, made partial payments to respondents by paying off the shares of the
respondents. The remaining balance is to be made to Consuelo. However, the
latter decided to cancel their agreement and informed Jose that the payments he
made shall be converted to rentals instead. Later on, Jose found out that
respondents Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine sold their share to Rene,
another respondent and therefore, the ownership has been consolidated to him.
Jose sent a demand letter and even brought the matter before the barangay for
conciliation. There being no settlement, he sought for the help of the court.
Issue:
Is Article 151 of the Family Code applicable to the present case?
Held:
Article 151 of the Family Code reads:
Article 151. No suit between members of the same family 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. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact
made, the case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under
the Civil Code
Palpably, the wisdom behind the provision is to maintain sacred the ties among
members of the same family. "As pointed out by the Code Commission, it is difficult to
imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation between members of the same
family. It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a compromise before a
litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family and it is known that a lawsuit
between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers." 30 Thus, a
party's failure to comply with this provision before filing a complaint against a family member
would render such complaint premature;31 hence, dismissible.
In this light, case law states that Article 151 of the Family Code must be construed
strictly, it being an exception to the general rule.1âwphi1 Hence, any person having a
collateral familial relation with the plaintiff other than what is enumerated in Article 150 of the
Family Code is considered a stranger who, if included in a suit between and among family
members, would render unnecessary the earnest efforts requirement under Article
151.37 Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The express mention of one person, thing, act, or
consequence excludes all others. 38
In this instance, it is undisputed that: (a) Jose and Consuelo are full-blooded siblings;
and (b) Consuelo is the mother of Rene, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine, which make them
nephews and niece of their uncle, Jose. It then fi1llows that Rene, Luis, Philippe, and
Claudine are considered ''strangers'' to Jose insofar as Article 15l of the Family Code is
concerned. In this relation, it is apt to clarify that while it was the disagreement between Jose
and Consuelo that directly resulted in the filing of the suit the fact remains that Rene" Luis,
Philippe, and Claudine were rightfully imp leaded as co-defendants in Jose's complaint as
they are co-owners of the subject lands in dispute. In view of the inclusion of "strangers" to
the suit between Jose and Consuelo who are full-blooded siblings, the Court concludes that
the suit is beyond the ambit of Article 151 of the Family Code. Perforce, the courts a
quo gravely erred in dismissing Jose's complaint due to noncompliance with the earnest effort
requirement therein.
