Article 149.

The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a

basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.
Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom,
practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized
or given effect. (216a, 218a)

Article 150. Family relations include those:

1) Between husband and wife;
2) Between parents and children;
3) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-
blood. (217a)

What do family relations include?

It must be between husband and wife and the relationship must be a legal relationship meaning the parties are legally married
meaning not that of a common law relationship. In number 2 and 3 enumerations, the relationship may be legitimate or
illegitimate.

Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall

prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or
petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made,
but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were
in fact made, the same case must be dismissed.

This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of
compromise under the Civil Code. (222a)

What are those that cannot be a subject of compromise?

 The civil status of persons
 future support
 validity of marriage
 grounds for legal separation
 jurisdiction of courts
 future legitime.

In the cases of O’LACO v. CO CHOCHO CHIT, the court held that there was earnest efforts when the sister testified that she made
arrangements with the other petitioners and thus it was cured.

O’Laco vs. Co Cho Chit and CA 220 S 656

From 2017 Prebar

It is well settled that the attempt to compromise as

well as the inability to succeed is a condition precedent
to the filing of a suit between members of the same
family. Hence, the defect in the complaint is assailable
at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, for
lack of cause of action.

In GUERRERO VS. FERNANDO, the absence of the allegation in the complaint should warrant already the dismissal of the
petition because it used to be jurisdictional.

Guerrero vs. RTC Br. XVI, Bello, Jr. and Hernando

January 10, 1994
From 2017 Prebar

 Requirement is mandatory, so that “if it is

shown that no such efforts were in fact
made, it must be dismissed.”
 Rule is introduced because it is difficult to
imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle
than litigation between members of the same
family.
However, with the very recent decision of the Court in ROMERO, it is no longer jurisdictional. If it is not questioned by the
respondent in the answer, then it is deemed a waiver of the right. It is no longer jurisdictional.
In the case of HIYAS SAVINGS BANK, Hiyas claimed that the case should be dismissed because the wife was one of those named
as one of the respondents but the Court said that the inclusion of a third person removes the requirement of alleging earnest
efforts. It should only be between parties mentioned in Art. 150.

Situations where allegation of earnest effort is not required.

1. A suit between a woman and her sister’s husband because the husband is a third person. The basis of which is
Honteveros vs. RTC.
2. Collateral relatives who are not brothers and sisters in the case of Mendez.
3. Included in the suit is a stranger not a member of the same family in the case of Hiyas Savings.
4. In special proceedings because the term suit would merely imply civil action.

Exclusion to the requirement on earnest efforts

(From 2017 PREBAR):
1) Common law relationships;
2) Sisters-in-law (hence, also brothers-in-law);
3) Between collateral relatives who are not
brothers and sisters (Mendez vs. Eugenio);
4) Suit between a woman against her sister and
the latter’s husband, the inclusion of the
husband is not within the “family relations”
provided for by law (Hontiveros vs. RTC);
5) If included in the suit is a stranger not of the
same family as the interest of such stranger
may differ from the interest of the member
of the same family ex. A co-owner; and
6) Special proceedings- the term “suit” clearly
implies only civil actions (Manalo vs. CA)

These are the exceptions to the rule that even if the parties are related and falling under Art. 150, the requirement of alleging
earnest efforts does not apply.

Likewise, the latest ruling of the Court in ROMERO VS. SINGSON that it ceases to be a jurisdictional requirement. It is on the part
of the respondent to raise the absence of the allegation. Otherwise, that is deemed a waiver.

Chapter 2. The Family Home

Art. 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and
the wife or by an unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling house
where they and their family reside, and the land on which it is
situated. (223a)

Art. 153. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot
from the time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time of
its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually
resides therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt
from execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter
provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law. (223a)

Can there be a family home constituted when the marriage is void under Art. 36?
That is answered by the Court in the case of VALDEZ AND BUENAVENTURA. Yes, there can. However, when there is already
liquidation, or partition of the properties acquired during the cohabitation, the family home should be included in the
distribution of the properties which is not true when the marriage is annulled or the parties are legally separated because the
conjugal dwelling shall be awarded to the spouse to whom the majority of the children have choose to remain under Arts. 102
and 129.

For those marriages with a property regime that can be distributed and liquidated under 147 or 148, it shall be included in the
liquidation because according to the Court in thecase of Valdez, the provisions of 102 and 129 do not apply to marriages that are
declared void under Art. 36. But take note that during the marriage, a void marriage under Art. 36 is valid without the
declaration of the Court because all the essential and formal requisites are present.

When is it constituted?
Under the Civil Code, Family home must either be judicially or extrajudicially constituted. Under the Family Code, as long as it is
occupied as a family residence, then it becomes a Family home and so long as its beneficiaries actually resides therein, family
home continues to be such and is accorded with the exmeption from execution for sale or attachment unless the value exceeded
that of what is provided for under Art. 157.

Art. 157. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at
the time of its constitution, the amount of the three hundred
thousand pesos in urban areas, and two hundred thousand pesos in
rural areas, or such amounts as may hereafter be fixed by law.

In any event, if the value of the currency changes after the adoption
of this Code, the value most favorable for the constitution of a family
home shall be the basis of evaluation.

For purposes of this Article, urban areas are deemed to include

chartered cities and municipalities whose annual income at least
equals that legally required for chartered cities. All others are
deemed to be rural areas. (231a)

There is also a pronouncement of the Court in the case of FIEL(?) that it should be in accordance with the value of the peso by
reason of the fluctuation of its value. Who determines it? Then we have to ask the Central Bank.

ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. PATERNO C. BELL, SR.

GR No. 186322, Jul 08, 2015

Ma’am G: The Spouses Bell sold the property, a residential house and lot, to Eulogio for 1M. But when the heirs or the
beneficiaries of the family home learned of the sale/alientation, - because when we go to Art. 158, the family home may be
sold, alienated, donated, assigned or encumbered by the owner or owners thereof with the written consent of the person
constituting the same, the latter’s spouse, and a majority of the beneficiaries of legal age. In case of conflict, the court shall
decide. --- Without that, that shall be void.

So here, what happened was that the beneficiaries now questioned the sale, and the RTC declared that there is no sale, rather
it is just one of an equitable mortgage, and ordered the Bell spouses to pay Eugolio the amount of 1M. But not to be secured by
the family home because it was mortgaged without the consent of the beneficiaries. So, it becomes an unsecured loan.

Now when the loan obligation remained unpaid, the creditor wanted now to execute the family home contending that the
value had already exceeded the amount or value mentioned in Art. 157. And the proof that they presented that the value
exceeded is the deed of sale that was declared subsequently by the court as void where the consideration thereof is 1M.

SC: That cannot be used as basis for purposes of the issuance of the writ of execution, because the deed of sale was declared
void. So if it was void, it is as if there was no effect whatsoever from the very beginning. So, it cannot be used as basis to have
the family home be levied upon (because there was non-payment of the obligation).

And moreover, the SC said that in order for the family home to be the subject of execution under Art. 160, the following must
be proven:

“To warrant the execution sale of respondents’ family home under Article 160, petitioners needed to establish these facts:
1. there was an increase in its actual value;
2. the increase resulted from voluntary improvements on the property introduced by the persons constituting the
family home, its owners or any of its beneficiaries; and
3. increased actual value exceeded the maximum allowed under Article 157.”

Otherwise, if the improvement merely resulted to involuntary improvement – like when you build your house in, let us say,
Maa in the 80’s, Maa before was very grassy. So the value of the property there is way below xxx tapos later the roads have
been cemented, the light posts were placed in the area, and therefore it increased the value of the properties. Can that be
considered as increase in value of the family home as to warrant execution? No, because it is INVOLUNTARY increase in the
value of the family home.

And in relation to that is the case of Bell. Because according to the court, if for instance, parks or playgrounds will be
introduced within the vicinity, that will definitely increase the value. So that is not the improvement that is considered under
the FC. It should be improvement voluntarily made by the person constituting the family home or the beneficiaries thereof to
warrant the execution of the family home.
*Additional from the FT: The exemption of the family home from execution, forced sale or attachment under the Family Code
is limited to 300,000 in urban areas and 200,000 in rural areas, unless those maximum values are adjusted by law. […] Any
subsequent improvement or enlargement of the family home by the persons constituting it, its owners, or any of its
beneficiaries will still be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment provided the following conditions obtain:
a. the actual value of the property at the time of its constitution has been determined to fall below the statutory limit;
and
b. the improvement or enlargement does not result in an increase in its value exceeding the statutory limit.

Otherwise, the family home can be the subject of a forced sale, and any amount above the statutory limit is applicable to the
obligations under Articles 155 and 160.