B. Family Relations

The Family<br>General Principles

The family as an institution - Being the foundation of the nation, it is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. (FC, Art. 149)

Family relations include

• Between husband and wife;
• Between parents and children;
• Among other ascendants and descendants;
• Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood. (FC, Art. 150)

A suit between a brother-in-law and a sister-in-law is not within the coverage of the law, hence, the plaintiff need not allege earnest efforts to effect a compromise. (Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, November 26, 1970) The listed relationships include husband and wife and parents and children, including an adoptive parent and legally adopted child; the other listed relationships generally arise by consanguinity. (FC, Art. 150; RA 11642)

The enumeration of brothers and sisters as members of the same family does not comprehend brothers- or sisters- in-law. (Guerrero v. RTC, G.R. No. 109068, January 10, 1994)

Requisites before a suit between members of the same family may prosper

• Earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made;
• Such efforts failed;
• The fact that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but the same have failed appears in the verified complaint or petition. (FC, Art. 151)

This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be subject of compromise under Art. 2035 of the New Civil Code.

Q: Jose alleged that he and his family have been occupying two (2) parcels of land. Consuelo offered to sell the subject lands to Jose, who accepted the offer. However, Consuelo decided to "cancel" their agreement. In response, Jose expressed his disapproval to Consuelo's plan and demanded that respondents proceed with the sale, which the latter ignored. Upon learning of such sale, Jose sent a demand letter to Rene asserting his right to the subject lands. As his demands went unheeded, Jose brought the matter to the barangay upon for conciliation proceedings between him and Rene. When it reached the CA such Court moto proprio dismissed the case on the ground that they failed to apply Article 151. Can the CA motu proprio dismiss such case?

A: NO. Article 151 did not apply because the impleaded nephews and niece were strangers to the family relationship covered by that article. Dismissal for failure to allege earnest efforts toward a compromise was therefore erroneous. Non-compliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is not a jurisdictional defect. Where Article 151 applies, noncompliance is a failure to comply with a condition precedent that must be timely raised as an affirmative defense in the answer under Rule 8, Section 12 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure; otherwise, it is waived.

If the respondents as parties-defendants could not, and did not, after filing their answer to petitioner’s complaint, invoke the objection of absence of the required allegation on earnest efforts at a compromise, the appellate court unquestionably did not have any authority or basis to motu propio order the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint. (Moreno vs. Kahn, G.R. No. 217744, July 30, 2018)

Reasons when the Court may exempt one spouse from living with the other

• If one spouse should live abroad.
• Other valid and compelling reasons.

NOTE: The Court shall not grant the exemption if it is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.

Purpose of Reserva Troncal:

• To reserve certain properties in favor of certain persons
• To prevent persons outside a family from acquiring, by some chance or accident, property which otherwise would have remained with the said family