Edwin N. Tribiana, petitioner vs. Lourdes M. Tribiana, respondentCarpio, J. (September 13, 2004)Facts:

Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since 1996, but formalized their union on October 28, 1997. On April 30, 1998, Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC, claiming Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, Khriza Mae Tribiana. Edwin deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza, who was 1 year and 4 months old. Later, it was found that Khriza was with Rosalina Tribiana, Edwins mother.

Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes petition on the ground that it did not allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made before its filing, following FC 151. On May 20, 1998, Lourdes filed her opposition to Edwins motion by stating that there were prior failed efforts at a compromise. Attached to Lourdes opposition was a copy of the Certification to File Action from their barangay, dated May 1, 1998. On May 18, 1998, the RTC denied Edwins motion to dismiss and reiterated a previous order requiring Edwin and Rosalina to bring Khriza to the RTC. Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration, Edwin filed with the CA a petition for prohibition and certiorari, which was denied on July 2, 1998. Edwins motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.Issue: WoN the trial and appellate courts should have dismissed the petition for habeas corpus on the ground of failure to comply with the condition precedent under FC 151Held: The trial and appellate courts resolutions were affirmed.Ratio:The petition for habeas corpus filed by Lourdes indeed failed to allege that she resorted to compromise proceedings before filing the petition. However, in her opposition to Edwins motion to dismiss, she attached a Barangay Certification to File Action. As Edwin did not dispute the authenticity of the Barangay Certification and its contents, this established that the parties tried to compromise, but were unsuccessful.Lourdes has complied with the condition precedent under FC 151. A dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1 (j) is warranted only if there is a failure to comply with a condition precedent. Given that the alleged defect is a mere failure to allege compliance with a condition precedent, the proper solution is not an outright dismissal of the action, but an amendment under Rule 10, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.