DIVISION

[ GR NO. 162084, Jun 28, 2005 ]

APRIL MARTINEZ v. RODOLFO G. MARTINEZ +

DECISION
500 Phil. 332

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 59420 setting aside and
reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 30, in Civil Case No. 00-96962 affirming, on appeal, the
decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila in Civil
Case No. 164761 (CV) for ejectment.

The Antecedents

The spouses Daniel P. Martinez, Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-

Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land identified as Lot 18-B-2
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 54334, as well as
the house constructed thereon.[2] On March 6, 1993, Daniel, Sr.
executed a Last Will and Testament[3] directing the subdivision of the
property into three lots, namely, Lots 18-B-2-A, 18-B-2-B and 18-B-2-
C.  He then bequeathed the three lots to each of his sons, namely,
Rodolfo, Manolo and Daniel, Jr.; Manolo was designated as the
administrator of the estate.

In May 1995, Daniel, Sr. suffered a stroke which resulted in the

paralysis of the right side of his body.  Natividad died on October 26,
1996.[4] Daniel, Sr. passed away on October 6, 1997. [5]

On September 16, 1998, Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly

signed by his father on September 15, 1996, where the latter appears
to have sold Lot 18-B-2 to Manolo and his wife Lucila.[6] He also
discovered that TCT No. 237936 was issued to the vendees based on
the said deed of sale.[7]

Rodolfo filed a complaint[8] for annulment of deed of sale and

cancellation of TCT No. 237936 against his brother Manolo and his
sister-in-law Lucila before the RTC.  He also filed a criminal
complaint for estafa through falsification of a public document in the
Office of the City Prosecutor against Manolo, which was elevated to
the Department of Justice.[9]

On motion of the defendants, the RTC issued an Order[10] on March

29, 1999, dismissing the complaint for annulment of deed of sale on
the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the action
since there was no allegation in the complaint that the last will of
Daniel Martinez, Sr. had been admitted to probate.  Rodolfo appealed
the order to the CA.[11]

On October 4, 1999, Rodolfo filed a Petition with the RTC of Manila

for the probate of the last will of the deceased Daniel Martinez, Sr. [12]

In the meantime, the spouses Manolo and Lucila Martinez wrote

Rodolfo, demanding that he vacate the property.  Rodolfo ignored the
letter and refused to do so.  This prompted the said spouses to file a
complaint for unlawful detainer against Rodolfo in the MTC of
Manila.  They alleged that they were the owners of the property
covered by TCT No. 237936, and that pursuant to Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1508, the matter was referred to the barangay for
conciliation and settlement, but none was reached.  They appended
the certification to file action executed by the barangay chairman to
the complaint.

In his Answer[13] to the complaint filed on October 11, 1999, Rodolfo

alleged, inter alia, that the complaint failed to state a condition
precedent, namely, that earnest efforts for an amicable settlement of
the matter between the parties had been exerted, but that none was
reached.  He also pointed out that the dispute had not been referred
to the barangay before the complaint was filed.

On October 20, 1999, the spouses Martinez filed an Amended

Complaint in which they alleged that earnest efforts toward a
settlement had been made, but that the same proved futile.  Rodolfo
filed his opposition thereto, on the ground that there was no motion
for the admission of the amended complaint.  The trial court failed to
act on the matter.

The spouses Martinez alleged in their position paper that earnest

efforts toward a compromise had been made and/or exerted by them,
but that the same proved futile.[14] No amicable settlement was,
likewise, reached by the parties during the preliminary conference
because of irreconcilable differences.  The MTC was, thus, impelled to
terminate the conference.[15]

On February 21, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of

the spouses Martinez.  The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of

plaintiff.  The defendant, including any person claiming right under
him, is ordered:

1) To vacate the subject premises;

2) To pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 a month starting July 17,

1999, the date of last demand until he vacates the same;

3) To pay the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and

4)      Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.[16]
The trial court declared that the spouses Martinez had substantially
complied with Article 151 of the Family Code of the
Philippines[17]based on the allegations of the complaint and the
appended certification to file action issued by the barangay captain.

Rodolfo appealed the decision to the RTC.  On May 31, 2000, the RTC
rendered judgment affirming the appealed decision.  He then filed a
petition for review of the decision with the CA, alleging that:

1. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH FOUND WITHOUT MERIT THE DEFENSE OF
 PETITIONER THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE
COMPLAINT THAT PETITIONER HAS UNLAWFULLY
WITHHELD POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY FROM
RESPONDENTS A REQUIREMENT IN [AN] UNLAWFUL
DETAINER SUIT.

2. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH FOUND THAT PETITIONER'S POSSESSION OF
THE PROPERTY IS BY MERE TOLERANCE OF
RESPONDENTS.

3. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE A
CAUSE OF ACTION.

4. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH DID NOT RESOLVE THE SIXTH ISSUE, TO
WIT, "Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over this case
considering that the allegations in the complaint makes out a
case of accion publiciana."

5. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.

6. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THE MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT OF CONCILIATION HAS BEEN COMPLIED
WITH.

7. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
LAW.

8. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THE PENDENCY OF CIVIL CASE
NO. 98-91147 AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 99-95281,
INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS AND
INVOLVING THE SAME PROPERTY DID NOT DIVEST THE
 MTC OF AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE CASE.

9. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE

MTC WHICH GRANTED THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR BY THE
RESPONDENTS.

10. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF

THE MTC.[18]

On November 27, 2003, the CA rendered judgment granting the

petition and reversing the decision of the RTC.  The appellate court
ruled that the spouses Martinez had failed to comply with Article 151
of the Family code.  The CA also held that the defect in their
complaint before the MTC was not cured by the filing of an amended
complaint because the latter pleading was not admitted by the trial
court.

Upon the denial of their motion for reconsideration of the said

decision, the spouses Martinez filed the present petition for review on
certiorari, in which they raise the following issues:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CERTIFICATION TO FILE ACTION AND

THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE CASE
PASSED [THROUGH] THE BARANGAY BUT NO SETTLEMENT
WAS REACHED, ARE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE TO PROVE
THAT, INDEED, EARNEST EFFORTS WERE, IN FACT, MADE BUT
THE SAME HAVE FAILED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND

SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED FOR
UNDER ARTICLE 151 OF THE FAMILY CODE, CONSIDERING
THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES TO A SUIT IN THIS CASE IS NOT A
MEMBER OF THE SAME FAMILY.[19]
The petitioners alleged that they substantially complied with Article
151 of the Family Code, since they alleged the following in their
original complaint:

2. In compliance with P.D. 1508, otherwise known as the

"Katarungang Pambarangay," this case passed [through] the
Barangay and no settlement was forged between plaintiffs and
defendant as a result of which Certification to File Action was
issued by Barangay 97, Zone 8, District I, Tondo, Manila. xxx" 
(Underscoring supplied)[20]
Further, the petitioners averred, they alleged in their position paper
that they had exerted earnest efforts towards a compromise which
proved futile.  They also point out that the MTC resolved to terminate
the preliminary conference due to irreconcilable difference between
the parties.  Besides, even before they filed their original complaint,
animosity already existed between them and the respondent due to
the latter's filing of civil and criminal cases against them; hence, the
objective of an amicable settlement could not have been attained. 
Moreover, under Article 150 of the Family Code, petitioner Lucila
Martinez had no familial relations with the respondent, being a mere
sister-in-law.  She was a stranger to the respondent; hence, there was
no need for the petitioners[21] to comply with Article 151 of the Family
Code.

The petition is meritorious.

Article 151 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 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.
The phrase "members of the family" must be construed in relation to
Article 150 of the Family Code, to wit:
Art. 150.  Family relations include those:

(1) Between husband and wife;

(2) Between parents and children;
(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.
Article 151 of the Family code must be construed strictly, it being an
exception to the general rule.  Hence, a sister-in-law or brother-in-
law is not included in the enumeration.[22]

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. [23]

Thus, a party's failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code
before filing a complaint against a family member would render such
complaint premature.

In this case, the decision of the CA that the petitioners were

mandated to comply with Article 151 of the Family code and that they
failed to do so is erroneous.

First.  Petitioner Lucila Martinez, the respondent's sister-in-law, was

one of the plaintiffs in the MTC.  The petitioner is not a member of
the same family as that of her deceased husband and the respondent:

As regards plaintiff's failure to seek a compromise, as an alleged

obstacle to the present case, Art. 222 of our Civil Code provides:

"No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same

family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to
the limitations in Article 2035."

It is noteworthy that the impediment arising from this provision

applies to suits "filed or maintained between members of the same
family."  This phrase, "members of the same family," should,
however, be construed in the light of Art. 217 of the same Code,
pursuant to which:

"Family relations shall include those:

(1) Between husband and wife;

(2) Between parent and child;
(3) Among other ascendants and their descendants;
(4) Among brothers and sisters."

Mrs. Gayon is plaintiff's sister-in-law, whereas her children are his

nephews and/or nieces.  Inasmuch as none of them is included in the
enumeration contained in said Art. 217 which should be construed
strictly, it being an exception to the general rule and Silvestre Gayon
must necessarily be excluded as party in the case at bar, it follows that
the same does not come within the purview of Art. 222, and plaintiff's
failure to seek a compromise before filing the complaint does not bar
the same.[24]
Second.  The petitioners were able to comply with the requirements of
Article 151 of the Family Code because they alleged in their complaint
that they had initiated a proceeding against the respondent for
unlawful detainer in the Katarungang Pambarangay, in compliance
with P.D. No. 1508; and that, after due proceedings, no amicable
settlement was arrived at, resulting in the barangay chairman's
issuance of a certificate to file action.[25] The Court rules that such
allegation in the complaint, as well as the certification to file action by
the barangay chairman, is sufficient compliance with article 151 of
the Family Code.  It bears stressing that under Section 412(a) of
Republic Act No. 7160, no complaint involving any matter within the
authority of the Lupon shall be instituted or filed directly in court for
adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the
parties and no settlement was reached.[26]

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is

GRANTED.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
59420 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.  The Decision of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, as affirmed on appeal by the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30, in Civil Case No.
164761(CV) is REINSTATED.  No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,

concur.

[1]
 Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with Associate
Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Arsenio J. Magpale, concurring.
[2]
 Rollo, pp. 69-70.
[3]
 Id. at 71-72.
[4]
 Id. at 68.
[5]
 Id. at 67.
[6]
 Id. at 73-76.
[7]
 Id. at 77-78.
[8]
 Id. at 79-84.
[9]
 Rollo, pp. 93-94.
[10]
 Id. at 85-90.
[11]
 Id. at 91.
[12]
 Id. at 95-98.
[13]
 Rollo, pp. 60-66.
[14]
 Id. at 13.
[15]
 Id.
[16]
 Rollo, p. 40.
[17]
 Formerly Article 222 of the New Civil Code.
[18]
 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[19]
 Rollo, p. 12.
[20]
 Id. at 13.
[21]
 Petitioner Manolo Martinez died intestate on October 18, 2004
and was survived by petitioner Lucila Martinez and their children,
namely, April, Fritz Daniel and Maria Olivia, all surnamed Martinez,
who were substituted as parties-petitioners.
[22]
 See Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, 26 November 1970, 36
SCRA 104.
[23]
 Magbaleta v. Gonong, G.R. No. L-44903, 22 April 1977, 76 SCRA
511.
[24]
 Gayon v. Gayon, supra.
[25]
 Section 399 of Republic Act No. 7160.
[26]
 SEC. 412.  Conciliation. (a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in
Court. No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any
matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted
directly in court or any other government office for adjudication
unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before
the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or
settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or
pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or
unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.