Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals

A complaint for future support need not allege earnest efforts toward a compromise because future support is a non-compromisable matter under Article 2035 of the Civil Code, and therefore falls outside the scope of Article 222's requirement. The showing of previous efforts to compromise would be superfluous where no valid compromise is possible on the issues raised.

The parties were spouses, having married on 2 September 1953. The Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386) governs family relations, including the requirement under Article 222 that no suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made and have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035. Article 2035 provides that no compromise upon certain questions shall be valid, including the validity of a marriage or legal separation and future support.

Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza and Cecilio Mendoza were married on 2 September 1953. They lived together as husband and wife until 14 July 1954, when Cecilio departed for the United States to further his studies and practice his profession. Thereafter, according to Luisa's complaint, Cecilio deliberately abandoned and neglected her without justifiable cause, and despite repeated demands, failed and refused to provide for her maintenance and support. The complaint alleged that Luisa was pregnant, sickly, and without any source of revenue, while Cecilio was employed in a hospital in the United States earning an average of $200.00 a month, besides being a part-owner of lands in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, assessed at P32,330.00 in 1955.

Cecilio moved for dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, but the motion was denied. He then filed an answer with counterclaim, putting in issue the validity of his marriage to Luisa, and Luisa duly replied. On 3 July 1961, Cecilio filed a second motion to dismiss, this time predicated on the complaint's failure to state a cause of action because it contained no allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made before the filing of the suit, invoking Article 222 of the Civil Code.

The Court of First Instance refused to entertain the second motion to dismiss. Cecilio then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to stop the Court of First Instance from further proceeding with the case. The Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition and issued the preliminary writ prayed for, but after hearing and consideration of the merits, it denied the writ of prohibition and dissolved the injunction. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Cecilio resorted to the Supreme Court.

• Condition Precedent to Cause of Action: Petitioner argued that Article 222 of the Civil Code requires that before a suit between members of the same family is filed or maintained, it must appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, and the only way to make it so appear when the suit is filed is by a proper averment to that effect in the complaint.
• Lack of Cause of Action: Petitioner maintained that since the law forbids a suit being initiated or maintained unless such efforts at compromise appear, the showing that efforts in question were made is a condition precedent to the existence of the cause of action; thus, the failure of the complaint to plead that plaintiff previously tried in earnest to reach a settlement out of court renders it assailable for lack of cause of action, and it may be so attacked at any stage of the case even on appeal.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondent's specific arguments beyond the procedural posture of the case.

• Applicability of Article 222 to Future Support: Whether the complaint's failure to allege earnest efforts toward a compromise, as required by Article 222 of the Civil Code, renders it dismissible for lack of cause of action when the claim involves future support.

• Applicability of Article 222 to Future Support: No. The complaint was not dismissible because it involved a claim for future support, which under Article 2035 of the Civil Code cannot be the subject of a valid compromise and is therefore outside the sphere of application of Article 222.

• Applicability of Article 222 to Future Support: The Court agreed that petitioner's position represents a correct statement of the general rule on the matter — that a showing of earnest efforts toward compromise is a condition precedent to the existence of a cause of action in suits between family members. However, the Court held that the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance committed no error in refusing to dismiss the complaint, because on its face, the same involved a claim for future support that under Article 2035 of the Civil Code cannot be subject of a valid compromise, and is therefore outside the sphere of application of Article 222. This appears from the last proviso of Article 222, which subjects its operation to the limitations in Article 2035. Article 2035 provides that no compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: the validity of a marriage or a legal separation, and future support. Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues, a showing of previous efforts to compromise them would be superfluous. The Court further noted that even the answer below, in attacking the validity of the marriage of plaintiff-respondent to defendant-petitioner, poses a non-compromisable issue. While it may be that the complaint asks for both future support and support in arrears, as petitioner contends, the possibility of compromise on the latter does not negate the existence of a valid cause of action for future support, to which Article 222 cannot apply.

• Non-Compromisable Claims Exception to Article 222 — Article 222 of the Civil Code requires earnest efforts toward compromise before a suit between family members is filed or maintained, but this requirement is subject to the limitations in Article 2035. Where the claim involves matters that cannot be the subject of a valid compromise — such as the validity of a marriage or legal separation, and future support — the showing of previous efforts to compromise is superfluous, and the complaint need not allege such efforts. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that a wife's complaint for future support against her husband stated a valid cause of action despite the absence of an allegation of earnest efforts toward compromise.

• "Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues, a showing of previous efforts to compromise them would be superfluous." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi: the requirement of earnest efforts toward compromise under Article 222 is inapplicable where the subject matter of the claim is non-compromisable under Article 2035.
• "It may be that the complaint asks for both future support and support in arrears, as petitioner contends. But, the possibility of compromise on the latter does not negate the existence of a valid cause of action for future support, to which Article 222 can not apply." — This passage clarifies that even if a complaint includes both compromisable and non-compromisable claims, the presence of a valid cause of action for the non-compromisable claim (future support) is sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss based on Article 222.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior cases.

• Article 222, Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386) — Provides that no suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035. The Court held that this provision does not apply to claims for future support because such claims are non-compromisable.
• Article 2035, Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386) — Provides that no compromise upon certain questions shall be valid, including the validity of a marriage or a legal separation, and future support. The Court applied this provision to exclude claims for future support from the operation of Article 222.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Castro, JJ., concurred. Sanchez, J., took no part.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted; Justice Sanchez took no part in the case.