[persons] magbaleta vs. gonong

1
Rufino Magbaleta, Romana B. Magbaleta, and Susana G. Baldovi, petitioners, vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong and Catalino Magbaleta, respondents Barredo, J. (April 22, 1977) Facts: Judge Gonong of the CFI of Ilocos Norte, on August 31, 1976 and October 8, 1976, denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint filed against them, notwithstanding that Catalino is the brother of Rufino Mabaleta, the husband of Romana. The suit was to have a parcel of land, which was in the name of Rufino, declared to be the property of Catalino, who claims that Susana is trying to take possession of said land from his representative, with her contending that she had bought the same from the spouses Rufino and Romana. Said orders by the CFI were also alleged to be issued in violation of NCC 222 and RoC Rule 16, Section 1, there being no allegation in Catalino’s complaint that his suit, being between members of the same family, contained prior earnest efforts toward a compromise. The refusal to dismiss the complaint was based on the ground that Susana, the alleged buyer of the land in dispute, was a stranger, so the aforementioned provisions did not apply. Issue: WoN the ruling of Judge Gonong was correct Held: Yes, it was. Ratio: Though the Code Commission recognizes the need for compromise before a lawsuit between family members is allowed, this consideration does not make it imperative that such efforts to compromise should be a jurisdictional prerequisite for the maintenance of an action whenever a stranger to the family is a party thereto, whether as a necessary or indispensable one. One who is a stranger to the family would not be willing to suffer the delay and complications between or among relatives, which would require prior compromise efforts. Also, it is neither practical nor fair that the determination of the rights of a stranger to the family who acquired some kind of interest in any right or property disputed among its members should be made to depend on the way the latter would settle their differences among themselves.

Upload: marc-virtucio

Post on 28-Sep-2015

298 views

Category:

Documents


14 download

DESCRIPTION

Magbaleta vs. Gonong

TRANSCRIPT

Rufino Magbaleta, Romana B. Magbaleta, and Susana G. Baldovi, petitioners, vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong and Catalino Magbaleta, respondents

Barredo, J. (April 22, 1977)

Facts:

Judge Gonong of the CFI of Ilocos Norte, on August 31, 1976 and October 8, 1976, denied petitioners motion to dismiss the complaint filed against them, notwithstanding that Catalino is the brother of Rufino Mabaleta, the husband of Romana.

The suit was to have a parcel of land, which was in the name of Rufino, declared to be the property of Catalino, who claims that Susana is trying to take possession of said land from his representative, with her contending that she had bought the same from the spouses Rufino and Romana. Said orders by the CFI were also alleged to be issued in violation of NCC 222 and RoC Rule 16, Section 1, there being no allegation in Catalinos complaint that his suit, being between members of the same family, contained prior earnest efforts toward a compromise. The refusal to dismiss the complaint was based on the ground that Susana, the alleged buyer of the land in dispute, was a stranger, so the aforementioned provisions did not apply.

Issue: WoN the ruling of Judge Gonong was correct

Held: Yes, it was.

Ratio:

Though the Code Commission recognizes the need for compromise before a lawsuit between family members is allowed, this consideration does not make it imperative that such efforts to compromise should be a jurisdictional prerequisite for the maintenance of an action whenever a stranger to the family is a party thereto, whether as a necessary or indispensable one. One who is a stranger to the family would not be willing to suffer the delay and complications between or among relatives, which would require prior compromise efforts. Also, it is neither practical nor fair that the determination of the rights of a stranger to the family who acquired some kind of interest in any right or property disputed among its members should be made to depend on the way the latter would settle their differences among themselves.