Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25609. November 27, 1968.]

MARGARET ANN WAINRIGHT VERSOZA, JOSE MA. VERSOZA, JR., CHARLES JOHN VERSOZA and VIRGINIA FELICE VERSOZA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOSE MA. VERSOZA, Defendant-Appellee.

William H. Quasha & Associates, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Deogracias T. Reyes & Associates and Jose M. Luison, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY RELATIONS; SUIT BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY; ARTICLE 222, CIVIL CODE, CONSTRUED IN RELATION TO SECTION 1(j), RULE 16, RULES OF COURT; MEANING OF "NO SUIT SHALL BE FILED OR MAINTAINED" ; THE ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE AND INABILITY TO ARRIVE THEREAT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE FILING OF THE SUIT; EXCEPTION. — The text of Article 222 of the Civil Code is this: "No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest towards a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035" (See Art. 217, Civil Code, regarding the scope of "family relations"). The requirement in Article 222 has been given more teeth by Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which states as ground for a motion to dismiss that" (t)he suit is between members of the same family and no earnest efforts towards a compromise has been made." The cumulative impact of the statute and the rule just adverted to is that earnest efforts to reach a compromise and failure thereof must — ordinarily — be alleged in the complaint. The Civil Code provision that" (n)o suit shall be filed or maintained" simply means that the attempt to compromise and inability to arrive thereat is a condition precedent to the filing of the suit. As such it is a part of plaintiffs’ cause of action. Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Judge Puno bolstered this view with their statement that" (t)he terms of Article 222 require express allegation of an attempt to compromise and its failure; otherwise there is no cause of action stated" (Outline of Philippine Civil Law, 1956 ed., Vol. I, p. 222). The foregoing, however, is but a statement of the general rule. Future support operates outside the ambit thereof.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACTION FOR SUPPORT; RIGHT TO SUPPORT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF FUTURE TRANSACTION BUT SUPPORT IN ARREARS IS A DIFFERENT THING ALTOGETHER. — Support is, amongst others, everything that is indispensable for sustenance (Art. 290, Civil Code). The right to support cannot be: (1) renounced; (2) transmitted to third persons; nor (3) compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor (Art. 301, Civil Code). Compensation may not even be set up against a creditor who has a claim for support due by gratuitous title (Par. 2, Art. 1287, Civil Code). Of course, support in arrears is a different thing altogether. It may be compensated, renounced and transmitted by onerous or gratuitous title (Par 2, Art. 301, Civil Code). In Coral v. Gallego, the Court of Appeals has had occasion to declare that the right to support is not susceptible of future transactions under Article 1814 of the old Civil Code (38 O.G. 3158). Because compromise on future support is proscribed (Advincula v. Advincula, L-19065, Jan. 31, 1964; Velayo v. Velayo, L-23528, July 21, 1967; Velayo v. Velayo, L-14541, March 30, 1960), the conclusion is irresistible that an attempt at compromise of future support and failure thereof is not a condition precedent to the filing of a suit therefor and it need not be alleged in the complaint. In other words, since no valid compromise is possible on the issue of future support, a showing of previous efforts to compromise future support would be superfluous (Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 1967B Phil. 82).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; QUESTIONS OR ISSUES NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF COMPROMISE; ARTICLE 222 AND ARTICLE 2035, CIVIL CODE, COMPARED AND DIFFERENTIATED. — Article 2035 of the Civil Code provides that no compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:" (1) The civil status of persons; (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (3) Any ground for legal separation; (4) Future support; (5) The jurisdiction of courts; and (6) Future legitime." It thus appears that Article 2035 has roots deeper than Article 222. For, whereas Article 222 is inserted as a new concept in the present Code in a laudable effort to obviate a sad and tragic spectacle occasioned by a litigation between members of the same family, Article 2035 firmly maintains the ancient injunction against compromise on matters involving future support. And this is as it should be. For, even as Article 222 requires earnest efforts at a compromise and inability to reach one as a condition precedent to the finding and maintenance of a suit "between the members of the same family," that same Article took good care to add: "subject to the limitations in Article 2035."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; COMPLAINT; AMENDMENT OF; WHEN IT MAY BE REFUSED. — After a responsive pleading has been served, amendments may be made only upon leave of court (Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 10, Rules of Court). A proposed amendment may be refused when it confers jurisdiction on the court in which it is filed, if the cause of action originally set forth was not within that court’s jurisdiction (Rosario v. Carandang, 96 Phil. 845; Campos Rueda Corp. v. Bautista, L-18453, Sept. 29, 1962, cited in Tamayo v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., L-17749, Jan. 31, 1964). An amendment may also be refused when the cause of action is substantially altered (Sec. 3, Rule 10, Rules of Court; Arches v. Villaruz, 102 Phil. 661. See also Guirao v. Ver, 16 SCRA 638; and Shaffer v. Palma, 1968A Phild. 767).

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT IN CASE AT BAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. — The alleged defect (in the case at bar) is that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The proposed amendment seeks to complete it. An amendment to the effect that the requirements of Article 222 have been complied with does not confer jurisdiction upon the lower court. With or without this amendment, the subject-matter of the action remains as one for support, custody of children, and damages, cognizable by the court below. It follows, therefore, that the lower court, in the interest of justice, should have allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint instead of granting the motion to dismiss. This it could have done under Section 3 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. For, the defect in the complaint is curable.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


The question before us, framed in legal setting, is the correctness of the lower court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, the complaint seeking, inter alia, future support upon the ground that there is no allegation therein that earnest efforts toward a compromise were made but that the same have failed, in infringement of Article 222 of the Civil Code.

With this problem in mind, we turn to the pivotal facts.

On March 4, 1964, a verified complaint, later amended, for P1,500.00 monthly support, support in arrears, and damages, and custody of children, with a petition for support pendente lite 1 was lodged against Jose Ma. Versoza by his wife, Margaret Ann Wainright Versoza, and their three minor children, Jose Ma. Versoza, Jr., Charles John Versoza and Virginia Felice Versoza. Reasons given are that defendant has abandoned plaintiffs without providing for their support and maintains illicit relations with another woman.

Defendant’s answer attacked the complaint on the claim that it is premature and/or that it states no cause of action. Because, the complaint which involves members of the same family 2 does not allege earnest efforts toward a compromise before the complaint was filed as set forth in the statute mentioned at the start of this opinion. Then followed defendant’s motion for preliminary hearing on jurisdiction. Defendant there argued that compliance with Article 222 of the Civil Code aforesaid was a condition precedent and should have been alleged in the complaint.

On February 22, 1965, following appropriate proceedings, the lower court came out with its first appealed order. It there resolved to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, upon the ground that there was no showing that efforts have been exerted to settle the case amicably before suit was started.

Plaintiffs moved to reconsider. Annexed to its motion was an affidavit of their counsel to the effect that before court action was taken efforts were made to settle the case amicably, but which were fruitless.

On March 30,1965, the lower court brushed aside this motion.

In an effort to conform to the position taken by the lower court, plaintiffs filed a second motion for the reconsideration of the orders of February 22, and March 30, 1965. Plaintiffs at the same time sought admission of their second amended complaint in which the required averment was made to obviate the objection to their complaint. They there alleged that before starting the present suit, they sought amicable settlement but were unsuccessful.

On June 22, 1965, the second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the lower court" (f)or lack of merit."cralaw virtua1aw library

The dismissal orders are now the subject of appeal.

1. Plaintiffs argue that the Civil Code requirement of attempt to reach a compromise and of its failure need not be alleged in the complaint. They claim that some such fact may be proved either at the main hearing or at the preliminary hearing on the motion to dismiss.

The text of Article 222 of the Civil Code is this: "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. 3 The requirement in Article 222 has been given more teeth by Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which states as ground for a motion to dismiss that" (t)he suit is between members of the same family and no earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made."cralaw virtua1aw library

The cumulative impact of the statute and the rule just adverted to is that earnest efforts to reach a compromise and failure thereof must — ordinarily — be alleged in the complaint. The Civil Code provision that" (n)o suit shall be filed or maintained" simply means that the attempt to compromise and inability to arrive thereat is a condition precedent to the filing of the suit. As such it is a part of plaintiffs’ cause of action. Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Judge Puno 4 bolstered this view with their statement that" (t)he terms of article 222 require express allegation of an attempt to compromise and its failure; otherwise there is no cause of action stated."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. The foregoing, however, is but a statement of the general rule. Future support operates outside the ambit thereof. Mucius Scaevola 5 expresses the view that no objection can be made to a compromise "cuando el derecho es renunciable, eminentemente privado." Scaevola, however, emphasizes:" (P)ero el derecho a la vida no lo es." This brings us to the legal provision Scaevola commented upon, namely, Article 1814 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 1814. No puede transigir sobre el estado civil de las personas, ni sobre las cuestiones matrimoniales, ni sobre alimentos futuros." 6 So it is, that Colin y Capitant 7 observed: "Una cosa es que la transaccion sea en principio un acto licito, con exclusion de aquellas materias a que se refiere el art. 1814 del Codigo civil."cralaw virtua1aw library

The philosophy behind the rule is best expressed by Manresa 8 in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Aunque el Código no lo diga expresamente, desde luego se comprende que, por regla general, puedan ser objeto de transaccion todas las cosas que estan en el comercio de los hombres, siempre que no se halle prohibido por la ley. Esta es la regla general; pero hay casos en que. por razones de moralidad o por otras consideraciones no menos atendibles, no puede admitirse la transacción, como sucede, por ejemplo, en materia de estado civil de las personas, de cuestiones matrimoniales y de allmentos, y otros que tampoco son susceptibles de transaccion por afectar al interés publico o social y no estar en el dominio o en la potestad de los particulares el sustraerlos, a los efectos rigurosos de la ley, seg
Top of Page