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 eodora A!son before the "egional rial #ourt of $loilo #it!, %ranch &', (here it (as doc)eted as #ivil #ase *o+19'0,+ $n said complaint, petitioners alleged that the! are the o(ners of a parcel of land, in the to(n of -amindan, .rovince of #api/, as sho(n b! O# *o+ 00&1&,, issued pursuant to the decision of the $ntermediate+ Appellate #ourt, dated April 1&, 191,+ hat petitioners (ere deprived of income from the land as a result of the filing of the land registration case2 that such income consisted of rentals from tenants of the land in the amount of .33,000+00 per !ear from 1931 to1914, and .'9',000+00 per !ear thereafter2 and that private respondents filed the land registration case and (ithheld possession of the land from petitioners in bad faith+ $n their ans(er, private respondents denied that the! (ere married and alleged that private respondent Hontiveros (as a (ido(er (hile private respondent A!son (as single+ he! denied that the! had deprived petitioners of possession of and income from the land+ On the contrar!, the! alleged that possession of the propert! in 5uestion had alread! been transferred to petitioners on August 4, 191', b! virtue of a (rit of possession, dated -ul! 11, 191', issued b! the cler) of court of the "egional rial #ourt of #api/, Mambusao, the return thereof having been received b! petitioners6 counsel2 that since then, petitioners have been directl! 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 to(ards a compromise had been made, considering

that petitioner Augusto Hontiveros and private respondent Gregorio Hontiveros are brothers2 that the decision of the $ntermediate Appellate #ourt in 7and "egistration #ase *o+ *0'110&' (as null and void since it (as based upon a ground (hich (as not passed upon b! the trial court2 that petitioners6 claim for damages (as barred b! prescription (ith respect to claims before 191,2 that there (ere no rentals due since private respondent Hontiveros (as a possessor in good faith and for value2 and that private respondent A!son had nothing to do (ith the case as she (as not married to private respondent Gregorio Hontiveros and did not have an! proprietar! interest in the sub8ect propert!+ .rivate respondents pra!ed for the dismissal of the complaint and for an order against petitioners to pa! damages to private respondents b! (a! of counterclaim, as (ell as reconve!ance of the sub8ect land to private respondents+ ISSUE: he "egional rial #ourt palpabl! erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it does not allege under oath that earnest efforts to(ard a compromise (ere made prior to the filing thereof as re5uired b! Article 1'1 of the 9amil! #ode+ HELD: he trial court erred in dismissing petitioners6 complaint on the ground that, although it alleged that earnest efforts had been made to(ard the settlement of the case but the! proved futile, the complaint (as not verified for (hich reason the trial court could not believe the veracit! of the allegation+ he absence of the verification re5uired in Art+ 1'1 does not affect the 8urisdiction of the court over the sub8ect matter of the complaint+ he verification is merel! a formal re5uirement intended to secure an assurance that matters (hich are

alleged are true and correct+ $f the court doubted the veracit! of the allegations regarding efforts made to settle the case among members of the same famil!, it could simpl! have ordered petitioners to verif! them+ As this #ourt has alread! ruled, the court ma! simpl! order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and (aive strict compliance (ith the rules in order that the ends of 8ustice ma! be served+ Other(ise, mere suspicion or doubt on the part of the trial court as to the truth of the allegation that earnest efforts had been made to(ard a compromise but the parties6 efforts proved unsuccessful is not a ground for the dismissal of an action+ Onl! if it is later sho(n that such efforts had not reall! been e:erted (ould the court be 8ustified in dismissing the action+ Moreover, as petitioners contend, Art+ 1'1 of the 9amil! #ode does not appl! in this case since the suit is not e:clusivel! among the famil! members+ #iting several cases decided b! this #ourt, petitioners claim that (henever a stranger is a part! in the case involving the famil! members, the re5uisite sho(ing the earnest efforts to compromise is no longer mandator!+ he! argue that since private respondent A!son is admittedl! a stranger to the Hontiveros famil!, the case is not covered b! the re5uirements of Art+ 1'1 of the 9amil! #ode+ ;e agree (ith petitioners+ he inclusion of private respondent A!son as defendant and petitioner Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff ta)es the case out of the ambit of Art+ 1'1 of the 9amil! #ode+ <nder this provision, the phrase =members of the same famil!= refers to the husband and (ife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters, (hether full or half0 blood+19 As this #ourt held in Guerrero v+ " #, $locos *orte, %r+ >?$@

"eligious relationship and relationship b! affinit! are not given an! legal effect in this 8urisdiction+ #onse5uentl!, private respondent A!son, (ho is described in the complaint as the spouse of respondent Hontiveros, and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, (ho is admittedl! the spouse of petitioner Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers to the Hontiveros famil!, for purposes of Art+ 1'1+ ALBANO VS. GAPUSAN FACTS: $n 19,1 or five !ears before his appointment to the bench, respondent Gapusan notari/ed a document for the personal separation of the spouses ?alentina Andres and Guillermo Maligta of %arrio 3,?intar, $locos *orte and for the e:tra8udicial li5uidation of their con8ugal partnership+ $t (as stipulated in that document that if either spouse should commit adulter! or concubinage, as the case ma! be, then the other should refrain from filing an action against the other+ -udge Gapusan denied that he drafted the agreement+ He e:plained that the spouses had been separated for a long time (hen the! signed the separation agreement and that the (ife had begotten children (ith her paramour+ He said that there (as a stipulation in the agreement that the spouses (ould live together in case of reconciliation+ His belief (as that the separation agreement forestalled the occurrence of violent incidents bet(een the spouses+ Albano in filing the malpractice charge is in effect as)ing this #ourt to ta)e belated disciplinar! action against -udge Gapusan as a member of the bar or as a notar!+ AHe (as admitted to the bar in 1934B+

ISSUE: ;hether or not -udge Gapusan should be censured because of notari/ing the void agreement bet(een the spouses Albano+ HELD: here is no 5uestion that the covenants contained in the said separation agreement are contrar! to la(, morals and good customsA%iton vs+ Momongan, 3& .hil+ 4B+ hose stipulations undermine the institutions of marriage and the famil!, =Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution=+ = he famil! is a basic social institution (hich public polic! cherishes and protects+= AArts+ '&and &13, #ivil #odeB+ Marriage and the famil! are the bases of human societ! throughout the civili/ed (orld AAdong vs+ #heong Ceng Gee, ,3.hil+ ,32 "amire/ vs+ Gmur, ,& .hil+ 1'', 13,2 Goitia vs+ #ampos "ueda,3' .hil+ &'&, &',2 %ro(n vs+ Dambao, 10& .hil+ 131B+ o preserve the institutions of marriage and the famil!, the la( considers as void =an! contract for personal separation bet(een husband and (ife= and =ever! e:tra8udicial agreement, during the marriage, for the dissolution of the con8ugal partnership= AArt+ &&1,#ivil #odeB+ %efore the ne( #ivil #ode, it (as held that the e:tra8udicial dissolution of the con8ugal partnership (ithout 8udicial sanction (as void AEuintana vs+ 7erma, &, .hil+ &1'2 De 7una vs+ 7inatoc, 4, .hil+ 1'B+ A notar! should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the famil! b! encouraging the separation of the spouses and e:tra8udicall! dissolving the con8ugal partnership+ *otaries (ere severel! censured b! this #ourt for notari/ing documents (hich subvert the institutions of marriage and the famil! ACelanova vs+ Mendo/a, Adm+ Matter *o+ 10,0#-, Ma! 19, 194', 3, C#"A 392 Miranda vs+ 9uentes, Adm+ #ase *o+&,1, April 30, 1933, 13 C#"A 10&2

%iton vs+ Momongan, supra,, .anganiban vs+ %orromeo, '1 .hil+ 3342 $n re Cantiago, 40 .hil+ 332%alinon vs+ De 7eon, 9, .hil+ &44B+ "espondent Gapusan as a member of the bar should be censured for having notari/ed the void separation agreement alread! mentioned+ VDA. DE MANALO VS. COURT OF APPEALS 349 SCRA 135 FACTS: 1+ roadio Manalo died intestate in Manila on 9ebruar! 1,, 199&+ &+ He (as survived b! his (ife .ilar and his eleven children+ 3+ At the time f his death, roadio left several properties located in Manila and in the province of arlac+ ,+ Fight of his children, herein respondents, filed (ith the "egional rial #ourt of Manila a petition for the 8udicial settlement of the estate of roadio Manalo, and for the appointment of their brother, "omeo as administrator+ '+ he trial court issued an order setting the petition for hearing and directed the publication of the order for three consecutive (ee)s in a ne(spaper of general circulation+ 3+ $t also directed service b! registered mail of the said order upon the heirs mentioned in the petition+ 4+ On the date set for the hearing for the petition, the trial court issued an order Gdeclaring the (hole (orld in default, e:cept the government+H 1+ he trial court set the reception of evidence of petitioners+ 9+ Ho(ever, the order of general default (as set aside b! the trial court upon motion of herein petitioners .ilar and the remaining three other children+

10+ he trial court issued an order admitting the petition for 8udicial settlement of estate+ 11+ .etitioners filed a petition for certiorari under "ule 3' of the "ules of #ourt+ 1&+ Among their contentions (as the absence of earnest efforts to(ards compromise among members of the same famil!2 and no certification of non0forum shopping (as attached to the petition+ 13+ he CA denied the petition so (as (ith a Motion for "econsideration+ 1,+ Hence this petition averring that the petitioner should be dismissed under "ule 13, Cection 1A8B of the "evised "ules of #ourt on the ground that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied (ith as their (as failure to compl! (ith the re5uirement in Article &&& of the #ivil #ode+ ISSUE: $s the .etition for $ssuance of 7etters of Administration, Cettlement and Distribution of Fstate an ordinar! civil actionI ;ould "ule 13, Cection 1A8B of the "ules of #ourt vis0a0vis Article &&& of the #ivil #ode appl! as a ground for the dismissal of the petitionI HELD: $t is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averment and the character of the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling+ A careful scrutin! of the .etition for $ssuance of 7etters of Administration, Cettlement and Distribution of Fstate belies herein petitionerJs claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinar! civil action+ he said petition contains sufficient 8urisdictional facts re5uired in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fact of death of the late

roadio Manalo on 9ebruar! ,, 199&, as (ell as his residence in the #it! of Manila at the time of his said death+ he fact of death of the decedent and of his residence (ithin the countr! are foundation facts upon (hich all the subse5uent proceedings in the administration of the estate rest+ he petition also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs including a tentative list of the properties left b! the deceased (hich are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings+ $n addition, the reliefs pra!ed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention of the petitioners therein Aprivate respondents hereinB to see) 8udicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father+ #oncededl!, the petition contains certain averments (hich ma! be t!pical of an ordinar! civil action+ Herein petitioners, as oppositors therein, too) advantage of the said defect in the petition and filed their so0 called Opposition thereto (hich, as observed b! the trial court, is actuall! an Ans(er containing admission and denials, special and affirmative defenses and compulsor! counterclaim for actual, moral and e:emplar! damages, plus attorne!Js fees and costs in an apparent effort to ma)e out a case of an ordinar! civil action and ultimatel! see) its dismissal under "ule 13, Cection 1A8B of the "ules of #ourt vis0K0vis, Article &&& of the #ivil #ode+ Herein petitioners ma! not validl! ta)e refuge under the provisions of "ule 1, Cection &, of the "ules of #ourt to 8ustif! the invocation of Article && of the #ivil #ode of the .hilippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased roadio Manalo in as much as the latter provision is clear enough+ Article &&& is applicable onl! to ordinar! civil actions+ his is clear form the term

GsuitH that it refers to an action b! one person or person against another or others in a court of 8ustice in (hich the plaintiff pursues the remed! (hich the la( afford him for the redress of an in8ur! or the enforcement of a right, (hether at la( or in e5uit!+ A civil action is thus an action filed in a court of 8ustice, (hereb! a part! sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the protection or redress of a (rong+ %esides, an e:cerpt from the report of the #ode #ommission to ma)e that legal provision applicable onl! to civil actions (hich are essentiall! adversarial and involve members of the same famil!+ MODE UILLO VS. BREVA FACTS: On -ul! 4, 1911, the sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land located at .oblacion Malalag, Davao del Cur containing an area of 300s5uare meters (ith a mar)et value of .3,,''0+00 and assessed value of .4,'40+00 per a: Declaration *o+ 140010013'9, registered in the name of -ose Mode5uillo in the office of the .rovincial Assessor of Davao del Cur2 and a parcel of agricultural land located at Dalagbong %ulacan, Malalag, Davao del Cur containing an area of 3 hectares (ith a mar)et value of .&,,130+00 and assessed value of .9,3'0+00 per a: Declaration *o+ 140010011,1 registered in the name of -ose Mode5uillo in the office of the .rovincial Assessor of Davao del Cur+ A motion to 5uash andLor to set aside lev! of e:ecution (as filed b! defendant -ose Mode5uillo alleging therein that the residential land located at .oblacion Malalag is (here the famil! home is built since1939 prior to the commencement of this case and as such is e:empt from e:ecution, forced sale or attachment under Articles 1'& and 1'3of the 9amil! #ode e:cept for liabilities mentioned in Article

1''thereof, and that the 8udgment debt sought to be enforced against the famil! home of defendant is not one of those enumerated under Article1'' of the 9amil! #ode+ As to the agricultural land although it is declared in the name of defendant it is alleged to be still part of the public land and the transfer in his favor b! the original possessor and applicant (ho (as a member of a cultural minorit! (as not approved b! the proper government agenc!+ An opposition thereto (as filed b! the plaintiffs+ $n the present case, the residential house and lot of petitioner (as not constituted as a famil! home (hether 8udiciall! or e:tra8udiciall! under the #ivil #ode+ $t became a famil! home b! operation of la( onl! under Article 1'3 of the 9amil! #ode+ $t is deemed constituted as a famil! home upon the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode on August 3, 1911 not August ,, one !ear after its publication in the Manila #hronicle on August ,, 1914 A1911 being a leap !earB+ ISSUE: ;hether or not the propert! in dispute is deemed to be a famil! home+ HELD: he contention of petitioner that it should be considered a famil! home from the time it (as occupied b! petitioner and his famil! in 1939 is not (ell0 ta)en+ <nder Article 13& of the 9amil! #ode, it is provided that =the provisions of this #hapter shall also govern e:isting famil! residences insofar as said provisions are applicable+= $t does not mean that Articles 1'& and 1'3 of said #ode have a retroactive effect such that all e:isting famil! residences are deemed to have been constituted as famil! homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode and are e:empt from e:ecution for the pa!ment of obligations incurred before the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode+ Article 13& simpl! means

that all e:isting famil! residences at the time of the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode, are considered famil! homes and are prospectivel! entitled to the benefits accorded to a famil! home under the 9amil! #ode+ Article 13& does not state that the provisions of #hapter &, itle ? have a retroactive effect+ $s the famil! home of petitioner e:empt from e:ecution of the mone! 8udgment aforecitedI *o+ he debt or liabilit! (hich (as the basis of the 8udgment arose or (as incurred at the time of the vehicular accident on March 13, 1943 and the mone! 8udgment arising there from (as rendered b! the appellate court on -anuar! &9, 1911+%oth preceded the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode on August 3, 1911+ his case does not fall under the e:emptions from e:ecution provided in the 9amil! #ode+ As to the agricultural land sub8ect of the e:ecution, the trial court correctl! ruled that the lev! to be made b! the sheriff shall be on (hatever rights the petitioner ma! have on the land+ ;HF"F9O"F, the petition is D$CM$CCFD for lac) of merit+ *o pronouncement as to costs+ CO O"DF"FD+ MANACOP VS. CA FACTS: O(ing to the failure to pa! the sub0 contract cost pursuant to a deed of assignment signed bet(een petitioner6s corporation and private respondent herein, the latter filed on -ul! 3, 1919, a complaint for a sum of mone!, (ith a pra!er for preliminar! attachment, against the former+ As a conse5uence of the order on -ul! &1, 1919, the corresponding (rit for the

provisional remed! (as issued on August11, 1919 (hich triggered the attachment of a parcel of land in Eue/on #it! o(ned b! Manacop #onstruction .resident 9lorante 9+ Manacop, herein petitioner+ he petitioner insists that the attached propert! is a famil! home, having been occupied b! him and his famil! since 194&, and is therefore e:empt from attachment+ ISSUE: hat the parcel of land is a 9amil! Home and cannot be sub8ect for attachment+ HF7D@ .etitioner belief that his abode at Eue/on #it! since 194& is a famil! home (ithin the purvie( of the 9amil! #ode and therefore should not have been sub8ected to the ve:atious (rit+ Det, petitioner must concede that respondent court properl! applied the discussion conve!ed b! -ustice Ganca!co in this regard (hen he spo)e for the 9irst Division of this #ourt in Mo!"#$%llo &'. B("&a A11' C#"A 433M1990NB that@ Article 1'' of the 9amil! #ode also provides as follo(s@ Art+ 1''+ he famil! home shall be e:empt from e:ecution, forced sale or attachment e:cept@ A1B 9or non0pa!ment of ta:es2 A&B 9or debts incurred prior to the constitution of the famil! home2 A3B 9or debts secured b! mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution2 and A,B 9or debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, material men and others (ho have rendered service for the construction of the building+ he e:emption provided as aforestated is effective from the time of the constitution of

the famil! home as such, and lasts so long as an! of its beneficiaries actuall! resides therein+ $n the present case, the residential house and lot of petitioner (as constituted as a famil! home (hether 8udiciall! or e:tra8udiciall! under the #ivil #ode+ $t became a famil! home b! operation of la( under Article 1'3 of the 9amil! #ode+ $t is deemed constituted as a famil! home upon the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode on August 3, 1911not August ,, one !ear after its publication in the Manila #hronicle on August ,, 1914 A1911 being a leap !earB+ he contention of petitioner that it should be considered a famil! home from the time it (as occupied b! petitioner and his famil! in1939 is not (ell0ta)en+ <nder Article 13& of the 9amil! #ode, it is provided that =the provisions of this #hapter shall also govern e:isting famil! residences insofar as said provisions are applicable+= $t does not mean that Articles 1'& and 1'3 of said #ode have a retroactive effect such that all e:isting famil! residences are deemed to have been constituted as famil! homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode and are e:empt from e:ecution for the pa!ment of obligations incurred before the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode+ Article 13& simpl! means that all e:isting famil! residences at the time of the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode, are considered famil! homes and are prospectivel! entitled to the benefits accorded to a famil! home under the 9amil! #ode+ Article 13& does not state that the provisions of #hapter &, itle ? have a retroactive effect+ $s the famil! home of petitioner e:empt from e:ecution of the mone! 8udgment aforecitedI *o+ he debt or liabilit! (hich

(as the basis of the 8udgment arose or (as incurred at the time of the vehicular accident on March 13, 1943 and the mone! 8udgment arising therefrom (as rendered b! the appellate court on -anuar! &9, 1911+%oth preceded the effectivit! of the 9amil! #ode on August 3, 1911+ his case does not fall under the e:emptions from e:ecution provided in the 9amil! #ode+ Aat pp+ 4410 44&B+ ?eril!, according to petitioner, his debt (as incurred in 1914 or prior to the effectivit! on August 3, 1911 of the 9amil! #ode Apage 14,petition2 page &&,Roll oB+ his fact alone (ill militate heavil! against the so0called e:emption b! sheer force of e:clusion embodied under paragraph &, Article 1'' of the 9amil! #ode cited in Mo!"#$%llo+ ;HF"F9O"F, the petition is hereb! D$CM$CCFD, (ith costs against petitioner+ CO O"DF"FD+

Martinez vs Martinez GR No. 162084, June 28, 2005 FACTS: Daniel Martine/ Cr+ and *atividad de Gu/man0Martine/ (ere the o(ners of a parcel of land+ he former e:ecuted a last (ill and testament directing the subdivision of the propert! into 3 lots be5ueathed to each of his sons namel! "odolfo, Manolo Adesignated as administrator of the estateB, and Daniel -r+ $n October 1994, Daniel Cr+ died+ "odolfo then found a deed of sale purportedl! signed b! his father on Ceptember 1993 (here it appears that the land (as sold to Manolo and his (ife 7ucila and (as also issued to them+ "odolfo filed a

complaint against his brother Manolo and sister0in0la( 7ucila for the annulment of the deed of sale and cancellation of the # + Cpouses (rote "odolfo demanding him to vacate the propert! (hich the latter ignored and refused to do so+ his prompted the spouses to file a complaint for unla(ful detainer against "odolfo+ his matter (as referred to the baranga! for conciliation and settlement but none (as reached+ $t (as alleged in the position paper of the spouses that earnest efforts to(ard a compromise had been made but the same proved futile+ ISSUE: ;O* spouses Martine/ complied (ith the re5uirements of Art 1'1 of the 9amil! #ode+ HELD: *o suit bet(een members of the same famil! shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint that earnest efforts to(ard a compromise have been made, but the same have failed+ 7ucila Martine/, the respondentJs sister0in0 la( (as one of the plaintiffs in the case at bar+ he petitioner is not a member of the same famil! as that of her deceased husband and the respondent+ Her relationship (ith the respondent is not one of those enumerated in Article 1'0+ $t should also be noted that the petitioners (ere able to compl! (ith the re5uirements of Article 1'1 because the! alleged in their complaint that the! had initiated a proceeding against the respondent for unla(ful detainer in the )atarungan .ambaranga! in compliance (ith .D1'01 and that after due proceedings, no amicable settlement (as arrived at resulting in the baranga! chairmanJs issuance of a certificate to file action+