SORIANO, Portia Wynona G.

4B

HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS, SR. v. JUANA GONZALES, et al.

G.R. No. 185922 | January 15, 2014 | Perez, J.

TOPIC – Restrictions on capacity to act (Family Relations, FC 151)

FACTS:
Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. (Dr. Favis) was married to Capitolina Aguilar (Capitolina) with
whom he had seven children. When Capitolina died, Dr. Favis married Juana Gonzales (Juana)
with whom he had one child namely Mariano Favis.

A year before his death, Dr. Favis allegedly executed a Deed of Donation transferring
some of his properties in favor of his grandchildren with Juana.

Subsequently, the children of Dr. Favis with Capitolina, the petitioners herein, filed an
action for annulment of the Deed of Donation against Juana, Mariano, and Mariano’s wife and
children who are the respondents herein. The petitioners claimed that the donation prejudiced
their legitime.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners and nullified the Deed
of Donation. According to the RTC, Dr. Favis, at the age of 92 and plagued with illnesses, could
not have had full control of his mental capacities to execute a Deed of Donation.

The respondents then interposed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA
ordered the dismissal of the nullification case. To the mind of the CA, the petitioners and the
respondents are members of the same family and the petitioners failed to aver that earnest
efforts toward a compromise have been made as mandated by Article 151 of the Family Code.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the case was not
subject to compromise as it involved future legitime. The CA denied the motion for
reconsideration. The CA ruled that the subject properties cannot be considered as future
legitime.

Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are required to aver that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made as mandated by Article 151 of the Family Code for the
nullification case to prosper?

RULING:
NO. Article 151 of the Family Code states that:
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.
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1
4B: 2020-2021
 This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of
compromise under the Civil Code.

In dismissing the nullification case, the CA correlated Art. 151 of the Family Code with
Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of the Court that provides the grounds for a motion to
dismiss. The CA deemed that requirement of earnest efforts toward a compromise is a
condition precedent for filing the case. The Court found that this correlation made by the CA in
dismissing the nullification case motu proprio is misplaced.

There are only four instances wherein a court may motu proprio dismiss a case in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Specifically, these instances are: (a)
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b)litis pendentia; (c) res judicata, (d) prescription of
action. Here, none of these instances were present.

Moreover, for a case to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 16, a motion to dismiss must be
filed. In line with that, Section 1, Rule 9 provides that defenses and objections not pleaded either
in a motion to dismiss or the answer are deemed waived. The only exceptions to this rule are
the same four instances when a court may motu proprio dismiss a case. Thus, failure to allege in
the complaint that earnest efforts at a compromise have been made but had failed is not one of
the exceptions. Upon such failure, the defense is deemed waived.

In Versoza v. Versoza, it was also ruled that a failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at
a
compromise in a complaint among members of the same family, is not a jurisdictional defect
but merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action. Such defect may be waived if there is
failure to file a seasonable objection since the defect is merely procedural and does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court.

In this case, no motion to dismiss based on the failure to comply with a condition
precedent was filed. Neither was such failure assigned as error in the appeal brought the
respondents before the CA. Therefore, the defense of failure to allege in the complaint that
earnest efforts at a compromise have been made but had failed is deemed waived.

Lastly, the Court noted that compromise was never an option insofar the respondents
are concerned. The impossibility of compromise instead of litigation was shown not alone by
the absence of a motion to dismiss but on the respondents' insistence on the validity of the
donation in their favor of the subject properties.

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1

4B: 2020-2021