GAUDENCIO GUERRERO vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOCOS 2. Considering that Art.

2. Considering that Art. 151 starts with the negative word "No", the
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
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-in-law” 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.

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: