Applicable Provisions: (this portion is not included in the

Order)

W/N the motion to dismiss shall be granted on the ground of

failure to comply with Article 151 FC.

If Yes

 Article 151 of the Family Code provides that, ‘’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 same case must be dismissed.
This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject
of compromise under the Civil Code.’’

 Allegations of conditions precedent

Common usage refers to conditions precedent as matters which
must be complied with before a cause of action arises. When a
claim is subject to a condition precedent, the compliance of the
same must be alleged in the pleading.
- The following are examples of conditions precedent:
a. A tender of payment is required before making a
consignation (Art. 1256, Civil Code of the Philippines).
b. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in
certain cases before resorting to judicial action- (Lopez u.
ciy of Manila, 303 SCRA 448; Dy v. Court of Appeals, 304
SCRA 331).
c. Prior resort to barangay conciliation proceedings is
necessary in certain cases (Chapter 7, Title I, Book Ill,
Local Government Code of 1991). Earnest efforts toward
a compromise must be undertaken when the suit is
between members of the same family and if no efforts
were in feet made, the case must be dismissed (Art. 151,
Family Code of the Philippines).
d. Arbitration may be a a condition precedent when the
contract between the parties provides for arbitration first
before recourse to judicial remedies.

If No
 Section 12 Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court states
that,

‘’Section 12. Prohibited motions. — The following motions shall

not be allowed:

(a)Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:

1)That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the claim;
2)That there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause; and
3)That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by
the statute of limitations; xxx.’’

 Section 12 Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Court also

provides that,

‘’ Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall

raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which
shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b),
Rule 6, and the following grounds:

xxx 5.That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
been complied with. xxx’’

 Barangay conciliation process is not a jurisdictional

requirement, so that noncompliance therewith cannot affect the
jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the
subject matter or over the person of the defendant. Such
defense shall be raised in the answer, otherwise, such objection
will be deemed waived (Aquino v. Aure, G.R. No. 153567,
February 18, 2008).

 However, Article 151 of the Family Code only applies when the
case is exclusively among family members. Whenever a
stranger is included as a party to the case, Article 151 does not
apply. (Hontiveros v. RTC, G.R. No. 125465 (1999))

W/N the court has jurisdiction over the case

 Test to determine whether an action is capable of
pecuniary estimation
 - The criterion is the nature of the principal action or the
remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or in the
RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim.

- However, where the basic issue is something other than the

right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought like specific performance suits and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or foreclosure of
mortgage, such actions are incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and

 To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its

subject matter is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation,
the nature of the principal action or relief sought must be
ascertained. If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of
money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the
recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over
a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of
the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. ( First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v.
Philippine Bank of Communications G.R. No. 202836, June 19,
2018)

 Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as the authority "to hear

and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its
powers.’’ (The Diocese of Bacolod et. al. v. Commission on
Elections et. al. G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)

 It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is

determined by the allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. (Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R.
Bautista v. Francisco Lindo et. al. G.R. No. 208232; March 10,
2014)

 Settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the court is

determined by the relevant allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. It cannot be made to depend on
the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to
 dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction
would depend almost entirely on the defendant. ( General
Milling Corporation v. Tirso Uytengsu III et. al. G.R. No. 160514
June 30, 2006)

 In the case of Sps. Aboitiz vs. Sps. Po, G.R. No. 208450, June
05, 2017, the court ruled that an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title is an action involving the title to real
property. The complaint of the Spouses Po is clearly an action
for reconveyance and annulment of title. Thus, the Regional
Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

 In a number of cases, we have held that actions for

reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title
over real property are actions that fall under the classification
of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein."
(Concha vs. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007)

W/N the cause of action has prescribed

If Yes

 Heirs or other persons deprived of lawful participation in the

estate may compel judicial settlement of estate within 2 years
from settlement and distribution [Sec. 4, Rule 74]

‘’Section 4. Liability of distributees and estate. — If it shall

appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement
and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions
of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or
other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful
participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may
compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner
hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful
participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it
shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the
estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other
person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation
payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate
may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the
amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how
much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in
 the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if
circumstances require, against the bond provided in the
preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the
deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain
charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for
the full period of two (2) years after such distribution,
notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have
been made.’’

 An action for reconveyance prescribes in [10] years from the

issuance of the Torrens title over the property." The basis for
this is Section 53, Paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1529
in relation to Articles 1456 and 1144(2) of the Civil Code. ( Sps.
Aboitiz vs. Sps. Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 05, 2017 )

 IGNACIO GERONA, MARIA CONCEPCION GERONA, FRANCISCO

GERONA and DELFIN GERONA vs. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, JOSE
DE GUZMAN, CLEMENTE DE GUZMAN, FRANCISCO DE
GUZMAN, RUSTICA DE GUZMAN, PACITA DE GUZMAN and
VICTORIA DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. L-19060; May 29, 1964
Inasmuch as petitioners seek to annul the aforementioned deed
of "extra-judicial settlement" upon the ground of fraud in the
execution thereof, the action therefor may be filed within four
(4) years from the discovery of the fraud (Mauricio v.
Villanueva, L-11072, September 24, 1959). Such discovery is
deemed to have taken place, in the case at bar, on June 25,
1948, when said instrument was filed with the Register of
Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in the name of
respondents exclusively, for the registration of the deed of
extra-judicial settlement constitute constructive notice to the
whole world (Diaz v. Gorricho, L-11229, March 29, 1958;
Avecilla v. Yatco, L-11578, May 14, 1958; J.M. Tuason & Co.,
Inc. v. Magdangal, L-15539, January 30, 1962; Lopez v.
Gonzaga, L-18788, January 31, 1964).

 An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive

trust must perforce prescribed in ten years and not otherwise.
(LIWALUG AMEROL, MACATANTO AMEROL, TAIB AMEROL,
DIBARATUN AMEROL, DIBARATUN, MATABALAO, MINDALANO
DIBARATUN, DIPUNDUGUN MORO, and MANUCAO MORO vs.
MOLOK BAGUMBARAN, G.R. No. L-33261 September 30, 1987)

If No
 ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS,* REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-
IN FACT, NYMPHA Z. SALES, Petitioners, v. MARIA DIVINA
GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
MARIKINA CITY
G.R. No. 197380, October 08, 2014
Art. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the
person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes.

To determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an

action for reconveyance, the plaintiff’s possession of the
disputed property is material. If there is an actual need to
reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession,
the action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes
in ten (10) years, the reference point being the date of
registration of the deed or the issuance of the title. On the
other hand, if the real owner of the property remains in
possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover
title and possession of the property does not run against him
and in such case, the action for reconveyance would be in the
nature of a suit for quieting of title which is imprescriptible

 General Rule: An unduly excluded heir may seek a new

settlement of the estate within two (2) years after the
settlement and distribution of an estate.
This issue was comprehensively tackled in the case: PEZA v.
HON. RUMOLDO R. FERNANDEZ, Regional Trial Court of Lapu-
Lapu City (Branch 54), et. al. (G.R. No. 138971, June 6, 2001).
This case is very important since it tackles several matters
involving prescription of actions involving properties and its
registration.

Exemption: When the title remains in the hands of the heirs

who have fraudulently caused the partition of the subject
property or in those of their transferees who cannot be
considered innocent purchasers for value. This prescription
period does not apply, however, to those who had no part in or
had no notice of the settlement.

This prescription period does not apply, however, to those who

had no part in or had no notice of the settlement.

In the present case, private respondents are deemed to have

been constructively notified of the extrajudicial settlement by
reason of its registration and annotation in the certificate of
title over the subject lot. From the time of registration, private
respondents had two (2) years or until July 8, 1984, within
which to file their objections or to demand the appropriate
settlement of the estate.

On the matter of constructive notice vis-à-vis prescription of an

action to contest an extrajudicial partition, a leading authority
on land registration elucidates as follows:

"While it may be true that an extrajudicial partition is an ex

parte proceeding, yet after its registration under the Torrens
system and the annotation on the new certificate of
title of the contingent liability of the estate for a period of two
years as prescribed in Rule 74, Section 4, of the Rules of Court,
by operation of law a constructive notice is deemed made to all
the world, so that upon the expiration of said period all third
persons should be barred [from going] after the particular
property, except where title thereto still remains in the
names of the alleged heirs who executed the partition
tainted with fraud, or their transferees who may not
qualify as ‘innocent purchasers for value’. If the liability of
the registered property should extend indefinitely beyond that
period, then such constructive notice which binds the whole
world by virtue of registration would be meaningless and
illusory. x x x."
 The only exception to the above-mentioned prescription is
when the title remains in the hands of the heirs who have
fraudulently caused the partition of the subject property or in
those of their transferees who cannot be considered innocent
purchasers for value.

 No extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person

who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
(Section 1 Rule 74 ROC)

 AMPARO S. CRUZ; ERNESTO HALILI; ALICIA H. FLORENCIO;

DONALD HALILI; EDITHA H. RIVERA; ERNESTO HALILI, JR.;
AND JULITO HALILI, PETITIONERS, V. ANGELITO S. CRUZ,
CONCEPCION S. CRUZ, SERAFIN S. CRUZ, AND VICENTE S.
CRUZ, RESPONDENTS
G.R. No. 211153, February 28, 2018
 In short, this is a simple case of exclusion in legal succession,
where co-heirs were effectively deprived of their rightful share
to the estate of their parents who died without a will - by virtue
of a defective deed of extrajudicial settlement or partition which
granted a bigger share to one of the heirs and was prepared in
such a way that the other heirs would be effectively deprived of
discovering and knowing its contents.

Thus, while the CA was correct in ruling in favour of

Concepcion and setting aside the subject deed of extrajudicial
settlement, it erred in appreciating and ruling that the case
involved fraud - thus applying the four-year prescriptive period
- when it should have simply held that the action for the
declaration of nullity of the defective deed of
extrajudicial settlement does not prescribe, under the
circumstances, given that the same was a total nullity. Clearly,
the issue of literacy is relevant to the extent that Concepcion
was effectively deprived of her true inheritance, and not so
much that she was defrauded.

W/N Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Petition shall be

granted

If Yes

 Section 2 Revised Rule 10 Rules of Court provides that,

‘’Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend
his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a
responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any
time within ten (10) calendar days after it is served.’’

 Section 3 Revised Rule 10 Rules of Court provides that,

‘’Amendments by leave of court. — Except as provided in
the next preceding Section, substantial amendments may be
made only upon leave of court. But such leave shall be refused
if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent
to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading
stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be
amended. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this
Section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after
notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.’’
 A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading ( Elizardo
Guntalilib v. Aurelio Dela Cruz and Salome V. Dela Cruz, G.R.
No. 200042, July 07, 2016) and does not preclude the exercise
of the plaintiff’s right to amend his complaint. (Remington
Industrial Sales v. CA, G.R. No. 133657, May 29, 2002]

W/N the court has jurisdiction over the case

 Test to determine whether an action is capable of
pecuniary estimation

- The criterion is the nature of the principal action or the

remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or in the
RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim.

- However, where the basic issue is something other than the

right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought like specific performance suits and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or foreclosure of
mortgage, such actions are incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and

 To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its

subject matter is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation,
the nature of the principal action or relief sought must be
ascertained. If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of
money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the
recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over
a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of
the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. ( First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v.
Philippine Bank of Communications G.R. No. 202836, June 19,
2018)

 Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as the authority "to hear

and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its
powers.’’ (The Diocese of Bacolod et. al. v. Commission on
Elections et. al. G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
  It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. (Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R.
Bautista v. Francisco Lindo et. al. G.R. No. 208232; March 10,
2014)

 Settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the court is

determined by the relevant allegations in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. It cannot be made to depend on
the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to
dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction
would depend almost entirely on the defendant. ( General
Milling Corporation v. Tirso Uytengsu III et. al. G.R. No. 160514
June 30, 2006)

In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value
thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees.

In the case at bar, therefore,