Mendoza vs.

CA
G.R. No. L-23102
April 24, 1967
CECILIO MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA
MENDOZA, respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza (Luisa) was married to petitioner Cecilio Mendoza and lived together as
husband and wife for less than a year. Cecilio left for the US to study and work as a doctor. Luisa, claiming that
Cecilio without justifiable cause or reason deliberately abandoned and neglected her, refused to provide support to
her at a time when she was pregnant, sickly and without any source of revenue.
Cecilio moved for dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Motion denied. Cecilio filed
an answer with counterclaim, putting in issue the validity of his marriage to plaintiff. Cecilio then filed a second
motion to dismiss, predicated on the complaint's failure to state a cause of action, because it contained no allegation
of efforts toward a compromise when Art 222 of the Civil Code provides that No suit xxx between members of the
same family unless xxx earnest efforts toward a compromise xxx made, xxx failed. Motion denied. Cecilio then
petitioned the CA for writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to stop the CFI from proceeding with the case.
The Court of Appeals issued the preliminary writ but, after hearing denied the writ of prohibition and dissolved the
injunction. His MR was denied.
ISSUE: WON Cecilios motion to dimiss on the ground of failure allege compliance with Art 222 should be granted.
NO. Petition dismissed.
RATIO: Generally, before a suit between members of the same family 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. Failure of the complaint to plead that Cecilio 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. However, Art 222 is without prejudice to 2035 which provides that
a claim for future support (also the validity of marriage) cannot be subject of a valid compromise. A
showing of previous efforts to compromise them would be superfluous.