Spouses Augusto Hontiveros and Maria Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Iloilo City and Spouses Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson

A trial court may not dismiss a complaint motu proprio for lack of the verification required by Article 151 of the Family Code; verification is merely a formal requirement that does not affect jurisdiction and may be ordered corrected, and Article 151 does not apply where the suit is not exclusively among members of the same family because a stranger is a party. When actual issues are raised in the answer, such as damages, judgment on the pleadings is improper.

Augusto Hontiveros and Gregorio Hontiveros are brothers. Augusto is married to Maria Hontiveros, while Gregorio is described in the complaint as married to Teodora Ayson, although private respondents denied the marriage and alleged that Gregorio was a widower and Ayson was single. The dispute concerns a parcel of land in Jamindan, Capiz, covered by OCT No. 0-2124 issued pursuant to an Intermediate Appellate Court decision in a land registration case filed by Gregorio. Article 151 of the Family Code requires that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it appears from a verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but failed.

On December 3, 1990, petitioners Augusto and Maria Hontiveros filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25, docketed as Civil Case No. 19504. Petitioners alleged that they owned a parcel of land in Jamindan, Capiz, covered by OCT No. 0-2124 issued pursuant to the Intermediate Appellate Court decision dated April 12, 1984, which modified the Court of First Instance of Capiz decision dated January 23, 1975 in a land registration case filed by Gregorio. They claimed they were deprived of income from tenants of the land in the amount of P66,000.00 per year from 1968 to 1987 and P595,000.00 per year thereafter, and that Gregorio filed the land registration case and withheld possession of the land in bad faith.

Private respondents answered, denying that they were married and alleging that Gregorio was a widower while Ayson was single. They denied depriving petitioners of possession and income. They alleged that possession of the property had already been transferred to petitioners on August 7, 1985 by virtue of a writ of possession dated July 18, 1985 issued by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Mambusao, the return of which had been received by petitioners’ counsel, and that since then petitioners had directly received rentals from the tenants. They asserted that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made, considering that Augusto Hontiveros and Gregorio Hontiveros are brothers. They also alleged that the Intermediate Appellate Court decision in Land Registration Case No. N-581-25 was null and void because it was based on a ground not passed upon by the trial court; that petitioners’ claim for damages was barred by prescription with respect to claims before 1984; that no rentals were due because Gregorio was a possessor in good faith and for value; and that Ayson had nothing to do with the case as she was not married to Gregorio and did not have any proprietary interest in the subject property. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint, damages on their counterclaim, and reconveyance of the subject land.

On May 16, 1991, petitioners filed an Amended Complaint to insert an allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made between the parties but were unsuccessful. Private respondents thereafter filed an Answer to Amended Complaint with Counterclaim, denying that earnest efforts had been made. On July 19, 1995, petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that private respondents’ answer did not tender an issue or otherwise admitted the material allegations of the complaint. Private respondents opposed the motion, alleging that they had denied petitioners’ claims and thus tendered issues of fact that could only be resolved after trial.

On November 23, 1995, the trial court denied petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings but dismissed the case. It found judgment on the pleadings inappropriate because private respondents specifically denied the claim for damages and because the party claiming damages must satisfactorily prove the amount thereof. It also dismissed the complaint because it was not verified as required by Article 151 of the Family Code and because it did not believe that earnest efforts had been made to reconcile the feuding brothers. The trial court noted that Ayson was not shown to be the wife of Gregorio, had not been shown to have acquired any proprietary right or interest in the land, and was not mentioned in the appellate court decision. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied.

• Dismissal Without Motion: Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint when no motion to that effect was made by any of the parties; private respondents, in opposing the motion for judgment on the pleadings, did not seek dismissal but only the denial of petitioners’ motion and asked that trial be held on the merits.
• Article 151 Verification: Petitioners contended that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of the verification required by Article 151 of the Family Code, and that the absence of verification did not affect jurisdiction and could be corrected.
• Inapplicability of Article 151: Petitioners maintained that Article 151 does not apply because the suit is not exclusively among members of the same family; private respondent Ayson is a stranger to the Hontiveros family, and petitioner Maria Hontiveros is also a stranger for purposes of Article 151.
• Constitutionality: Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Article 151 of the Family Code on the ground that it in effect amends the Rules of Court, a power reserved by the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

• Mode of Appeal: Private respondents argued preliminarily that petitioners should have brought the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals because the RTC order was actually a decision on the merits; even if certiorari were the proper remedy, the petition was defective because the trial judge had not been impleaded as a respondent.
• Earnest Efforts: Private respondents denied that earnest efforts had been made and asserted that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for lack of such efforts, considering that Augusto and Gregorio are brothers.
• Possession and Damages: Private respondents alleged that possession had already been transferred to petitioners on August 7, 1985 by writ of possession, that petitioners had since received rentals directly, that damages were barred by prescription for claims before 1984, and that no rentals were due because Gregorio was a possessor in good faith and for value.
• Ayson’s Non-Involvement: Private respondents maintained that Ayson had nothing to do with the case, was not married to Gregorio, and had no proprietary interest in the subject property.
• Validity of IAC Decision: Private respondents alleged that the Intermediate Appellate Court decision in Land Registration Case No. N-581-25 was null and void because it was based on a ground not passed upon by the trial court.

• Mode of Appeal and Impleading of Judge: Whether petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper remedy and whether failure to implead the trial judge as respondent rendered the petition defective.
• Dismissal Motu Proprio: Whether the RTC could dismiss the complaint motu proprio for failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code after denying petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Applicability of Article 151: Whether Article 151 of the Family Code applies where the suit is not exclusively among members of the same family because a stranger is a party.
• Judgment on the Pleadings: Whether the RTC correctly denied petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and should have ordered a trial on the merits.
• Constitutionality of Article 151: Whether Article 151 of the Family Code is unconstitutional for in effect amending the Rules of Court.

• Mode of Appeal and Impleading of Judge: No. The petition was filed under Rule 45; because the order was final and the questions were purely legal, petition for review on certiorari was the correct mode, and private respondents’ contention that the judge should have been impleaded is without merit.
• Dismissal Motu Proprio: No. The RTC erred in dismissing the complaint motu proprio for lack of verification under Article 151; verification is merely formal and does not affect jurisdiction, and the court could have ordered correction.
• Applicability of Article 151: No. Article 151 does not apply because the suit is not exclusively among members of the same family; the inclusion of Ayson as defendant and Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff takes the case out of its ambit.
• Judgment on the Pleadings: Yes. The RTC correctly denied the motion because actual issues were raised, including damages and other factual matters requiring trial.
• Constitutionality of Article 151: Not resolved. The Court declined to pass upon the constitutional question because it was unnecessary in light of the conclusion reached; courts do not pass upon constitutional questions unless they are the very lis mota.

• Mode of Appeal and Impleading of Judge: Under Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the power to review final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. The November 23, 1995 order was final because it disposed of the pending action and put an end to the litigation, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do except execution. The questions raised were questions of law: (1) whether after denying petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court could dismiss their complaint motu proprio for failure to comply with Article 151; and (2) whether Article 151 applies. These questions did not require an examination of the probative value of evidence or the truth or falsehood of facts. Thus, petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper mode of appeal, and private respondents’ contention was without merit.
• Dismissal Motu Proprio: A court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the plaintiff’s right to be heard, except in the following instances: if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial; if he fails to prosecute his action for unreasonable length of time; if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court; or if the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. None of these exceptions appeared in this case. The trial court itself found that judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate because private respondents specifically denied the damages claim and because damages must be proved. Necessarily, a trial had to be held. The trial court therefore correctly denied petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. However, it erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of verification under Article 151. The absence of verification does not affect jurisdiction over the subject matter; verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that the matters alleged are true and correct. If the court doubted the veracity of the allegations regarding efforts to settle, it could simply have ordered petitioners to verify them. The court may order correction of unverified pleadings or waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of the allegation that earnest efforts had been made is not a ground for dismissal; only if it is later shown that such efforts had not really been exerted would the court be justified in dismissing the action.
• Applicability of Article 151: Article 151 does not apply where the suit is not exclusively among members of the same family. The inclusion of private respondent Ayson as defendant and petitioner Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff took the case out of the ambit of Article 151. Under Article 150 of the Family Code, the phrase “members of the same family” refers to the husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood. In Guerrero vs. RTC, Ilocos Norte, Br. XVI, the Court held that “sisters-in-law,” and hence also “brother-in-law,” are not listed as members of the same family, and that a brother-in-law is not required to exert earnest efforts toward a compromise before filing suit. Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given any legal effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, private respondent Ayson, described in the complaint as the spouse of Gregorio, and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, admittedly the spouse of Augusto, are considered strangers to the Hontiveros family for purposes of Article 151.
• Judgment on the Pleadings: Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings, the court may, on motion of the party, direct judgment on such pleading. If there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed, the trial court has discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings. When there are actual issues raised in the answer, such as one involving damages, which require the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the trial court, it is improper for the judge to render judgment based on the pleadings alone. In this case, aside from the amount of damages, the following factual issues had to be resolved: (1) private respondent Teodora Ayson’s participation and/or liability, if any, to petitioners; and (2) the nature, extent, and duration of private respondents’ possession of the subject property. The trial court therefore correctly denied petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Constitutionality of Article 151: Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Article 151 on the ground that it in effect amends the Rules of Court, a power reserved to the Supreme Court. Considering the conclusion reached in the case, it was unnecessary to pass upon the constitutional question. Courts do not pass upon constitutional questions unless they are the very lis mota of the case.

• Article 151, Family Code — Earnest Efforts Toward Compromise — No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it appears from a verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but failed; if it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed. The rule does not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code. The Court held that the absence of verification does not affect jurisdiction, is merely formal, and may be ordered corrected; dismissal is justified only if it is later shown that earnest efforts had not really been exerted.
• Members of the Same Family Under Article 150, Family Code — The phrase refers to the husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood. Relationship by affinity, such as sisters-in-law or brothers-in-law, is not included, and religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given legal effect. The Court applied this to hold that Ayson and Maria Hontiveros were strangers to the Hontiveros family for purposes of Article 151, removing the case from its coverage.
• Judgment on the Pleadings — Under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, now Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, where an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings, the court may, on motion, direct judgment on such pleading. If no controverted matter remains after the answer is filed, the trial court has discretion to grant the motion. When actual issues are raised in the answer, such as damages requiring presentation and assessment of evidence, judgment on the pleadings is improper. The Court applied this to hold that the RTC correctly denied petitioners’ motion because damages and other factual issues required trial.
• Dismissal Motu Proprio — A court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the plaintiff’s right to be heard, except in the following instances: if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial; if he fails to prosecute his action for unreasonable length of time; if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court; or if the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. None of these exceptions was present, so the RTC’s motu proprio dismissal was improper.
• Appeal on Pure Questions of Law — Final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases involving only questions of law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court applied this to hold that the petition was the proper mode of appeal because the RTC order was final and the questions raised were purely legal.
• Constitutional Avoidance — Courts do not pass upon constitutional questions unless they are the very lis mota of the case. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Article 151 because the case was resolved on other grounds.

• "The absence of the verification required in Art. 151 does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint. The verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct." — This passage states the ratio on why the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of verification; it defines verification as formal and non-jurisdictional.
• "The court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the plaintiff's right to be heard, except in the following instances: if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial; if he fails to prosecute his action for unreasonable length of time; or if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court; or if the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit." — This passage enumerates the recognized exceptions to the prohibition on motu proprio dismissal and is central to the Court’s holding that none applied.
• "The inclusion of private respondent Ayson as defendant and petitioner Maria Hontiveros as plaintiff takes the case out of the ambit of Art. 151 of the Family Code." — This passage is the Court’s canonical statement on the inapplicability of Article 151 where a stranger to the family is a party.
• "When there are actual issues raised in the answer, such as one involving damages, which require the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the trial court, it is improper for the judge to render judgment based on the pleadings alone." — This passage states the controlling rule on judgment on the pleadings and explains why the RTC correctly denied petitioners’ motion.

• Atlas Consolidated Mining Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 51, 58-59 (1991) — Cited to establish that direct appeals to the Supreme Court from the trial court on questions of law must be taken by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Meneses vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 484, 491-492 (1994) — Cited to support that a final order dismissing a complaint is remedied by appeal, not certiorari, and that an appeal solely on questions of law may be taken to the Supreme Court.
• Baja vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA 391, 396-397 (1986) — Cited for the exceptions to a court’s power to dismiss a case motu proprio without violating the plaintiff’s right to be heard.
• Rocamora vs. RTC, Cebu (Branch VIII), 167 SCRA 615 (1988) — Cited to support that judgment on the pleadings is improper when actual issues, such as damages, require presentation and assessment of evidence.
• Vda. de Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 137 (1996); Sy vs. Habicon-Garayblas, 228 SCRA 644 (1993); Buenaventura vs. Halili, 149 SCRA 22 (1987) — Cited for the rule that a court may order correction of unverified pleadings or waive strict compliance with verification rules in the interest of justice.
• Guerrero vs. RTC, Ilocos Norte, Br. XVI, 229 SCRA 274, 278 (1994) — Cited to hold that a brother-in-law is not required to exert earnest efforts toward compromise under Article 151 because relationship by affinity is not included among members of the same family.
• Gayon vs. Gayon, 36 SCRA 104 (1970) — Cited for the rule that “sisters-in-law” are not comprehended within the enumeration of “brothers and sisters” as members of the same family.
• Magbaleta vs. Gonong, 76 SCRA 511 (1977) — Cited by petitioners for the proposition that the earnest-efforts requirement does not apply when a stranger is a party; the trial court had distinguished it, but the Supreme Court agreed with petitioners’ broader point on the inapplicability of Article 151.

• Article 151, Family Code — No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it appears from a verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but failed; if it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed; the rule does not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code. The Court held that the provision did not apply because strangers were parties, and that the lack of verification did not justify motu proprio dismissal.
• Article 150, Family Code — Defines “members of the same family” as the husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sisters, whether full or half-blood. The Court applied this to exclude Ayson and Maria Hontiveros, who were strangers to the Hontiveros family for purposes of Article 151.
• Rule 19, Rules of Court (now Rule 34, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) — Provides that where an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings, the court may, on motion of the party, direct judgment on such pleading. The Court applied this to hold that the RTC correctly denied judgment on the pleadings because actual issues, including damages, required trial.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari. The Court applied this to hold that the petition was the proper mode of appeal from the final RTC order involving purely legal questions.
• Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Vests the Supreme Court with the power to review final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. The Court cited this as the constitutional basis for taking the petition via Rule 45.

Justices Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing, and Buena concurred.