Parties:
ZOILA MENDEZ, RAFAEL MENDEZ, and MATILDE BIONSON, petitioners,
vs.
MAXIMO, EUGENIA JUANA, FORTUNATA, PRUDENCIA, ROMAN, ANECITA and MARIA, all surnamed BIONSON and HON. ALFREDO C. LAYA, Judge, Court of First of Cebu, Branch XII, respondents
Facts:
In October 1986, Petitioners filed before CFI Cebu praying that the parcel of land in paragraph 4a and 4b be rendered in the following partitions: (1) 2/3 for plaintiffs Zoila and Matilde’s family, and (2) 1/3 for respondents.
| Petitioners (Zoila and Matilde Bionson and 10 others) | Defendants (Cecilia Bionson and 9 others) |
| Before the SC:ITHE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. AV-26 FOR BEING BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 140. R-10846 RENDERED BY ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE SAME COURT AND WHICH HAD LONG BECOME FINAL.II…IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, WHERE THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE SPECIFICALLY DENIED AND SERIOUSLY TRAVERSED.III… IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT BASED ON A PREVIOUS DECISION RENDERED BY ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE SAME COURT WITH A DIFFERENT DISPOSITIONIV… IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF EARNEST EFFORTS BEING EXERTED BY THE PARTIES TO ARRIVE AT AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE ACTION WAS INSTITUTED, THE PARTIES BEING MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY. 7 (Focus of Persons Family) | • are the absolute and exclusive owners of the two (2) parcels of land • and that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against them.• asked for moral damages and rentals from the lands occupied by Zoila and Matilde |
Decisions:
Who filed to CFI: Zoila and Matilde
CFI Cebu: Favored Defendants for the reason of preponderance of evidence
After the writ of execution was issued, and the Sheriff collected sum from plaintiffs, private respondents filed another action for recovery against petitioners because the latter refused to deliver the possession of ownership.
Who filed to SC: Zoila and Matilde
Issue:
One of the 4 issues raised was: “Did the Court a quo erred in not dismissing the complaint for lack of earnest efforts being exerted by the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement before the action was instituted, the parties being members of the same family.”?
Ruling:
No. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they exerted diligent efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement or compromise to the extent of asking the intervention of local municipal officials.
Moreover, the parties are not members of the same family as provided in Article 217, Civil Code of the Philippines which reads:
ART 217. Family relations shall include those:
1. Between husband and wife;
2. Between parent and child;
3. Among other ascendants and their descendants;
4. Among brothers and sisters.
The trial court did not commit the errors assigned.
Petition Denied. CA decision affirmed.
English