MENDOZA VS CA

CECILIO MENDOZA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA MENDOZA

G.R. No. L-23102

April 24, 1967

Facts:

          In the complaint, private respondent, Luisa De La Rosa Mendoza averred that she was married to Cecilio Mendoza on 2 September 1953, that they lived together as husband and wife until 14 July 1954, when the husband departed for the United States to further his studies and practice his profession. Since then, defendant Mendoza, without justifiable cause or reason deliberately abandoned and neglected plaintiff and despite repeated demands by plaintiff, defendant has failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to provide for the maintenance and support of plaintiff, who is allegedly to be pregnant, sickly and without any source of revenue, while defendant (now petitioner) is employed in a hospital in the United States.

Issue:

          Whether or not the case at bar is covered under Article 151 where earnest efforts toward compromise should first be made prior the filing of the petition, and invoking Article 222 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Ruling:

          Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines requires that before a suit between members of the same family (in this case between husband and wife) 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. Since the law forbids a suit being initiated filed 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. It follows that 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.

          While the Supreme Court agree that petitioner's position represents a correct statement of the general rule on the matter, we are nevertheless constrained to hold that the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance committed no error in refusing to dismiss the complaint, for on its face, the same involved a claim for future support that under Article 2035 of the Civil Code of the Philippines can not be subject of a valid compromise, and is, therefore, outside the sphere of application of Article 222 of the Code upon which petitioner relies. This appears from the last proviso of said Article 222, future support.