Case Digest: Martinez vs. Martinez GR No 162084

Martinez vs. Martinez

GR No. 162084                                                  June 28, 2005

The spouses Daniel P. Martinez, Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land by TCT No. 54334, as well as the house constructed thereon. On March 6, 1993, Daniel, Sr. executed a Last Will and Testament directing the subdivision of the property into three lots, namely, Lots 18-B-2-A, 18-B-2-B and 18-B-2-C. He then handed down the three lots to each of his sons, namely, Rodolfo, Manolo and Daniel, Jr.; Manolo was designated as the administrator of the estate. After the death of the spouses, Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on September 15, 1996, where the latter appears to have sold Lot 18-B-2 to Manolo and his wife Lucila.6He also discovered that TCT No. 237936 was issued to the vendees based on the said deed of sale.

Rodolfo filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of TCT No. 237936 against his brother Manolo and his sister-in-law Lucila before the RTC. He also filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of a public document in the Office of the City Prosecutor against Manolo, which was elevated to the Department of Justice.

In the meantime, the spouses Manolo and Lucila Martinez wrote Rodolfo, demanding that he vacate the property. Rodolfo ignored the letter and refused to do so. This prompted the said spouses to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against Rodolfo in the MTC of Manila. They alleged that they were the owners of the property covered by TCT No. 237936, and that pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1508, the matter was referred to thebarangay for conciliation and settlement, but none was reached. They appended the certification to file action executed by the barangay chairman to the complaint.

In Rodolfo’s answer he alleged that the complaint failed to state a condition precedent, namely, that earnest efforts for an amicable settlement of the matter between the parties had been exerted, but that none was reached. He also pointed out that the dispute had not been referred to the barangay before the complaint was filed.

Issue:

Whether or not Art. 150 of the Family Code or earnest efforts for amicable settlement is necessary before the filing of this case.

Ruling:

No, Art. 151 of the Family Code provide, thus:

“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.

This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code.”

The phrase "members of the family" must be construed in relation to Article 150 of the Family Code, to wit:

“Art. 150. Family relations include those:

(1) Between husband and wife;

(2) Between parents and children;

(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and

(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.”

Hence, a sister-in-law or brother-in-law is not included in the enumeration. In this case, the decision of the CA that the petitioners were mandated to comply with Article 151 of the Family code and that they failed to do so is erroneous.

Mrs. Gayon is plaintiff’s sister-in-law, whereas her children are his nephews and/or nieces. Inasmuch as none of them is included in the enumeration contained in said Art. 217 – which should be construed strictly, it being an exception to the general rule – and Silvestre Gayon must necessarily be excluded as party in the case at bar, it follows that the same does not come within the purview of Art. 222, and plaintiff’s failure to seek a compromise before filing the complaint does not bar the same.

Second. The petitioners were able to comply with the requirements of Article 151 of the Family Code because they alleged in their complaint that they had initiated a proceeding against the respondent for unlawful detainer in theKatarungang Pambarangay, in compliance with P.D. No. 1508; and that, after due proceedings, no amicable settlement was arrived at, resulting in the barangay chairman’s issuance of a certificate to file action.