Facts:
Plaintiff Guerrero assails the decision of respondent RTC judge for dismissing the case on the grounds that there was “no earnest effort for ammicable settlement or compromise” between petitioner and respondent, which is his brother-in-law. Relief sought: That the decision of the respondent judge dismissing the case for lack of earnest effort for compromise be reversed.
| Petitioner | Defendant |
| Argues that brothers-in-law are not included in what the law contemplates in Art 217, Art 222 NCC, and Rule 16 of ROC. | The suit is still a suit between half-sisters . . .” since the wives have interest in the land in question |
Issue:
Are brothers by affinity considered members of the same family contemplated in Art 217 and Art 222 of NCC?
Is the absence of earnest efforts for compromise between brothers-in-law a ground for dismissal of the case?
Ruling:
No and yes. Quoting Gayon v Gayon 20 years ago, the “brothers and sisters” as members of the same family does not comprehend “brothers or sisters-in-law.” It’s not expressly listed in the provisions of the law, and therefore, the lack of efforts for compromise is not a cause to dismiss the case. Hence, petition granted. RTC decision set aside.
English