#11.G.R. No. 109068 January 10, 1994 GAUDENCIO GUERRERO, petitioner, vs.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOCOS NORTE, BR. XVI, JUDGE LUIS B. BELLO, JR., PRESIDING, and PEDRO G. HERNANDO, respondents. FACTS: 1. Pedro G. Hernando apparently overlooked this alleged defect since he did not file any motion to dismiss nor attack the complaint on this ground in his answer. 2. @ PRE-TRIAL: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr.: NOTED THAT: GUERRERO and HERNANDO were related as brothers-in-law then JUDGE gave petitioner five (5) days "to file his motion and amended complaint" to allege that the parties were very close relatives, their respective wives being sisters, and that the complaint to be maintained should allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted but failed and considered this deficiency a JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. 3. MR was filed by GUERRERO: brothers by affinity are not members of the same family, he was not required to exert efforts towards a compromise DENIED: "[f]ailure to allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise is jurisdictional such that for failure to allege same the court would be deprived of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case." 4. Case was dismissed without prejudice: No amended complaint filed 5. ISSUE: ON APPEAL: GUERRERO: a. whether brothers by affinity are considered members of the same family contemplated in Art. 217, par. (4), and Art. 222 of the New Civil Code, as well as under Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, of the Rules of Court requiring earnest efforts towards a compromise before a suit between them may be instituted and maintained; b. whether the absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts towards a compromise were exerted, which efforts failed, is a ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

HELD: 1. The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family and endeavors to strengthen it as a basic autonomous social institution. This is also embodied in Art. 149, and given flesh in Art. 151, of the Family Code, which provides: 2. Considering that Art. 151 starts with the negative word "No", the requirement is mandatory 4 that the complaint or petition, which must be verified, should allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made but that the same failed, so that "[i]f it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed." 3. BUT the instant case presents no occasion for the application of the above-quoted provisions. As early as two decades ago, we already ruled in Gayon v. Gayon 6 that the enumeration of "brothers and sisters" as members of the same family does not comprehend "sisters-in-law". 4. The requirement that the complaint or petition should allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but that the same failed is mandatory 5. The enumeration of brothers and sisters as members of the same family does not comprehend sister-in-law/ brothers-inlaw are not listed in Art 217 of the NCC as members of the same family and since Art 150 repeats the same members of the family court finds no reason to alter the existing jurisprudence 6. 2nd ISSUE: The attempt to compromise as well as the inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit between members of the same family, absent such allegation in the complaint being assailable at any stage of the proceeding, even on appeal, for lack of cause of action.