Favis Vs Gonzales

10/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 713
G.R. No. 185922. January 15, 2014.*

HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS, SR., represented by
their co-heirs and Attorneys-in-Fact MERCEDES A. FAVIS
and NELLY FAVIS-VILLAFUERTE, petitioners, vs.
JUANA GONZALES, her son MARIANO G. FAVIS, MA.
THERESA JOANA D. FAVIS, JAMES MARK D. FAVIS,
all minors represented herein by their parents, SPS.
MARIANO FAVIS and LARCELITA D. FAVIS,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; Under

the new rules, a court may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
569
appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that it has no

jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is another cause of
action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
limitations.—Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances
when the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim, namely: (a)
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c)
res judicata; and (d) prescription of action. Specifically in
Gumabon v. Larin, 370 SCRA 638 (2001) cited in Katon v.
Palanca, Jr., 437 SCRA 565 (2004), the Court held: x x x [T]he
motu proprio dismissal of a case was traditionally limited to
instances when the court clearly had no jurisdiction over the
subject matter and when the plaintiff did not appear during trial,
failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or
neglected to comply with the rules or with any order of the court.
Outside of these instances, any motu proprio dismissal would
amount to a violation of the right of the plaintiff to be heard.
Except for qualifying and expanding Section 2, Rule 9, and
Section 3, Rule 17, of the Revised Rules of Court, the amendatory
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure brought about no radical change.
Under the new rules, a court may motu proprio dismiss a claim
when it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that it
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e0237080b40d88753003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is another

cause of action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
statute of limitations.
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; No suit between
members from the same family shall prosper unless it should
appear from the verified complaint that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made but had failed.—That a condition
precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with, a
ground for a motion to dismiss emanating from the law that no
suit between members from the same family shall prosper unless
it should appear from the verified complaint that earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been made but had failed, is, as the
Rule so words, a ground for a motion to dismiss. Significantly, the
Rule requires that such a motion should be filed “within the time
for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim.” The time frame indicates that thereafter, the
motion to dismiss based on the absence of the condition precedent
is barred. It is so inferable from the opening sentence of Section 1
of Rule 9 stating that defense and objections not pleaded either in
a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
570
deemed waived. There are, as just noted, only four exceptions to

this Rule, namely, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; litis
pendentia; res judicata; and prescription of action. Failure to
allege in the complaint that earnest efforts at a compromise has
been made but had failed is not one of the exceptions. Upon such
failure, the defense is deemed waived.
Same; Same; Same; Cause of Action; A failure to allege
earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a complaint among
members of the same family, is not a jurisdictional defect but
merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action.—Thus was it
made clear that a failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a
compromise in a complaint among members of the same family, is
not a jurisdictional defect but merely a defect in the statement of
a cause of action. Versoza was cited in a later case as an instance
analogous to one where the conciliation process at the barangay
level was not priorly resorted to. Both were described as a
“condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in Court.” In
such instances, the consequence is precisely what is stated in the
present Rule. Thus: x x x The defect may however be waived by
failing to make seasonable objection, in a motion to dismiss or
answer, the defect being a mere procedural imperfection which
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Maria Cecilia I. Olivas for petitioners.
Benjamin P. Quitoriano for respondents.
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review assailing the 10
April 2008 Decision[1] and 7 January 2009 Resolution[2] of
the
_______________
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate
Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.,
concurring. Rollo, pp. 87-102.
571
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86497 dismissing

petitioners’ complaint for annulment of the Deed of
Donation for failure to exert earnest efforts towards a
compromise.
Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. (Dr. Favis) was married to
Capitolina Aguilar (Capitolina) with whom he had seven
children named Purita A. Favis, Reynaldo Favis,
Consolacion Favis-Queliza, Mariano A. Favis, Jr., Esther F.
Filart, Mercedes A. Favis, and Nelly Favis-Villafuerte.
When Capitolina died in March 1944, Dr. Favis took Juana
Gonzales (Juana) as his common-law wife with whom he
sired one child, Mariano G. Favis (Mariano). When Dr.
Favis and Juana got married in 1974, Dr. Favis executed
an affidavit acknowledging Mariano as one of his
legitimate children. Mariano is married to Larcelita D.
Favis (Larcelita), with whom he has four children, named
Ma. Theresa Joana D. Favis, Ma. Cristina D. Favis, James
Mark D. Favis and Ma. Thea D. Favis.
Dr. Favis died intestate on 29 July 1995 leaving the
following properties:
1. A parcel of residential land located at Bonifacio St.

Brgy. 1, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, consisting an area of 898 square
meters, more or less, bounded on the north by Salvador
Rivero; on the East by Eleutera Pena; on the South by
Bonifacio St., and on the West by Carmen Giron; x x x;
2. A commercial building erected on the aforesaid parcel of
land with an assessed value of P126,000.00; x x x;
3. A parcel of residential land located in Brgy. VII, Vigan,
Ilocos Sur, containing an area of 154 sq. ms., more or less,
bounded on the North by the High School Site; on the East

by Gomez St., on the South by Domingo [G]o; and on the
West by Domingo Go; x x x;
4. A house with an assessed value of P17,600.00 x x x;
_______________
[2] Id., at pp. 103-106.
572
5. A parcel of orchard land located in Brgy. VI, Vigan,

Ilocos Sur, containing an area of 2,257 sq. ma. (sic) more or
less, bounded on the North by Lot 1208; on the East by
Mestizo River; on the South by Lot 1217 and on the West by
Lot 1211-B, 1212 and 1215 x x x.[3]
Beginning 1992 until his death in 1995, Dr. Favis was beset by
various illnesses, such as kidney trouble, hiatal hernia, congestive
heart failure, Parkinson’s disease and pneumonia. He died of
“cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to multi-organ/system failure
secondary to sepsis secondary to pneumonia.”[4]
On 16 October 1994, he allegedly executed a Deed of

Donation[5] transferring and conveying properties
described in (1) and (2) in favor of his grandchildren with
Juana.
Claiming that said donation prejudiced their legitime,
Dr. Favis’ children with Capitolina, petitioners herein, filed
an action for annulment of the Deed of Donation,
inventory, liquidation and partition of property before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 20
against Juana, Spouses Mariano and Larcelita and their
grandchildren as respondents. In their Answer with
Counterclaim, respondents assert that the properties
donated do not form part of the estate of the late Dr. Favis
because said donation was made inter vivos, hence
petitioners have no stake over said properties.[6]
The RTC, in its Pre-Trial Order, limited the issues to the
validity of the deed of donation and whether or not
respondent Juana and Mariano are compulsory heirs of Dr.
Favis.[7]
_______________
[3] Id., at pp. 123-124.
[4] Records, p. 338.
[5] Id., at pp. 339-340.
[6] Id., at p. 34.
[7] Rollo, p. 172.
573
In a Decision dated 14 November 2005, the RTC nullified

the Deed of Donation and cancelled the corresponding tax
declarations. The trial court found that Dr. Favis, at the
age of 92 and plagued with illnesses, could not have had
full control of his mental capacities to execute a valid Deed
of Donation. Holding that the subsequent marriage of Dr.
Favis and Juana legitimated the status of Mariano, the
trial court also declared Juana and Mariano as compulsory
heirs of Dr. Favis. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing

considerations, the Deed of Donation dated October 16,
1994 is hereby annulled and the corresponding tax
declarations issued on the basis thereof cancelled. Dr.
Mariano Favis, Sr. having died without a will, his estate
would result to intestacy. Consequently, plaintiffs Heirs of
Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr., namely Purita A. Favis, Reynaldo A.
Favis, Consolacion F. Queliza, Mariano A. Favis, Jr., Esther
F. Filart, Mercedes A. Favis, Nelly F. Villafuerte and the
defendants Juana Gonzales now deceased and Mariano G.
Favis, Jr. shall inherit in equal shares in the estate of the
late Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. which consists of the following:
1. A parcel of residential land located at Bonifacio St.
Brgy. 1, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, consisting an area of 89 sq.
meters more or less, bounded on the north by Salvador
Rivero; on the East by Eleutera Pena; on the South by
Bonifacio St., and on the West by Carmen Giron;
2. A commercial building erected on the aforesaid parcel of
land with an assessed value of P126,000.00;
3. One-half (1/2) of the house located in Brgy. VI, Vigan
City, Ilocos Sur[,] containing an area of 2,257 sq. meters
more or less, bounded on the north by Lot 1208; on the east
by Mestizo River; on the South by Lot 1217 and on the West
by Lot 1211-B, 1212 and 1215.
4. The accumulated rentals of the new Vigan Coliseum in
the amount of One Hundred Thirty [Thousand]
574
(P130,000.00) pesos per annum from the death of Dr.

Mariano Favis, Sr.[8]
Respondents interposed an appeal before the Court of

Appeals challenging the trial court’s nullification, on the
ground of vitiated consent, of the Deed of Donation in favor
of herein respondents. The Court of Appeals ordered the
dismissal of the petitioners’ nullification case. However, it
did so not on the grounds invoked by herein respondents as

appellant.
The Court of Appeals motu proprio ordered the dismissal
of the complaint for failure of petitioners to make an
averment that earnest efforts toward a compromise have
been made, as mandated by Article 151 of the Family Code.
The appellate court justified its order of dismissal by
invoking its authority to review rulings of the trial court
even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration contending
that the case is not subject to compromise as it involves
future legitime.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ contention
when it ruled that the prohibited compromise is that which
is entered between the decedent while alive and
compulsory heirs. In the instant case, the appellate court
observed that while the present action is between members
of the same family it does not involve a testator and a
compulsory heir. Moreover, the appellate court pointed out
that the subject properties cannot be considered as “future
legitime” but are in fact, legitime, as the instant complaint
was filed after the death of the decedent.
Undaunted by this legal setback, petitioners filed the
instant petition raising the following arguments:
1. The Honorable Court of Appeals GRAVELY and

SERIOUSLY ERRED in DISMISSING the COMPLAINT.
_______________
[8] Id., at pp. 208-209.
575
2. Contrary to the finding of the Honorable Court of

Appeals, the verification of the complaint or petition is not a
mandatory requirement.
3. The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously failed to
appreciate that the filing of an intervention by Edward
Favis had placed the case beyond the scope of Article 151 of
the Family Code.
4. Even assuming arguendo without admitting that the
filing of intervention by Edward Favis had no positive effect
to the complaint filed by petitioners, it is still a serious error
for the Honorable Court of Appeals to utterly disregard the
fact that petitioners had substantially complied with the
requirements of Article 151 of the Family Code.
5. Assuming arguendo that petitioners cannot be
construed as complying substantially with Article 151 of the
Family Code, still, the same should be considered as a
nonissue considering that private respondents are in

estoppel.
6. The dismissal of the complaint by the Honorable Court
of Appeals amounts to grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack and excess of jurisdiction and a complete defiance of
the doctrine of primacy of substantive justice over strict
application of technical rules.
7. The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously
erred in not affirming the decision of the Court a quo that
the Deed of Donation is void.[9]
In their Comment, respondents chose not to touch upon

the merits of the case, which is the validity of the deed of
donation. Instead, respondents defended the ruling the
Court of Appeals that the complaint is dismissible for
failure of petitioners to allege in their complaint that
earnest efforts towards a compromise have been exerted.
_______________
[9] Id., at pp. 61-71.
576
The base issue is whether or not the appellate court may

dismiss the order of dismissal of the complaint for failure to
allege therein that earnest efforts towards a compromise
have been made.
The appellate court committed egregious error in
dismissing the complaint. The appellate courts’ decision
hinged on Article 151 of the Family Code, viz.:
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
case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the
subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
The appellate court correlated this provision with

Section 1, par. (j), Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides:
Section 1. Grounds.—Within the time for but before

filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
xxxx
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not

been complied with.
The appellate court’s reliance on this provision is

misplaced. Rule 16 treats of the grounds for a motion to
dismiss the complaint. It must be distinguished from the
grounds provided under Section 1, Rule 9 which specifically
deals with dismissal of the claim by the court motu proprio.
Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
577
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.—

Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred
by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court
shall dismiss the claim.
Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when

the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim, namely: (a)
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis
pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription of action.[10]
Specifically in Gumabon v. Larin,[11] cited in Katon v.
Palanca, Jr.,[12] the Court held:
x x x [T]he motu proprio dismissal of a case was

traditionally limited to instances when the court clearly had
no jurisdiction over the subject matter and when the
plaintiff did not appear during trial, failed to prosecute his
action for an unreasonable length of time or neglected to
comply with the rules or with any order of the court.
Outside of these instances, any motu proprio dismissal
would amount to a violation of the right of the plaintiff to be
heard. Except for qualifying and expanding Section 2, Rule
9, and Section 3, Rule 17, of the Revised Rules of Court, the
amendatory 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure brought about no
radical change. Under the new rules, a court may motu
proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from the pleadings
or evidence on record that it has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter; when there is another cause of action
pending between the same parties
_______________
[10] P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corp.,

G.R. No. 166462, 24 October 2012, 684 SCRA 453, 464-465.
[11] 422 Phil. 222, 230; 370 SCRA 638, 643-644 (2001).
[12] 481 Phil. 168, 180; 437 SCRA 565, 573-574 (2004).
578
for the same cause, or where the action is barred by a prior

judgment or by statute of limitations. x x x.[13]
The error of the Court of Appeals is evident even if the

consideration of the issue is kept within the confines of the
language of Section 1(j) of Rule 16 and Section 1 of Rule 9.
That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been
complied with, a ground for a motion to dismiss emanating
from the law that no suit between members from the same
family shall prosper unless it should appear from the
verified complaint that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made but had failed, is, as the Rule
so words, a ground for a motion to dismiss. Significantly,
the Rule requires that such a motion should be filed
“within the time for but before filing the answer to the
complaint or pleading asserting a claim.” The time frame
indicates that thereafter, the motion to dismiss based on
the absence of the condition precedent is barred. It is so
inferable from the opening sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9
stating that defense and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
There are, as just noted, only four exceptions to this Rule,
namely, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; litis
pendentia; res judicata; and prescription of action. Failure
to allege in the complaint that earnest efforts at a
compromise has been made but had failed is not one of the
exceptions. Upon such failure, the defense is deemed
waived.
It was in Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas[14] cited
in P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and
Development Corporation[15] where we noted that the
second sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9 does not only supply
exceptions to the rule that defenses not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, it
also allows courts to dismiss cases motu propio on any of
the enumerated
_______________
[13] Gumabon v. Larin, supra note 11 at p. 230; pp. 643-644.
[14] G.R. No. 157852, 15 December 2010, 638 SCRA 444, 451.
[15] Supra note 10 at p. 465.
579
grounds. The tenor of the second sentence of the Rule is

that the allowance of a motu propio dismissal can proceed
only from the exemption from the rule on waiver; which is
but logical because there can be no ruling on a waived
ground.
Why the objection of failure to allege a failed attempt at
a compromise in a suit among members of the same family
is waivable was earlier explained in the case of Versoza v.
Versoza,[16] a case for future support which was dismissed
by the trial court upon the ground that there was no such
allegation of infringement of Article 222 of the Civil Code,
the origin of Article 151 of the Family Code. While the
Court ruled that a complaint for future support cannot be
the subject of a compromise and as such the absence of the
required allegation in the complaint cannot be a ground for
objection against the suit, the decision went on to state
thus:
The alleged defect is that the present complaint does not

state a cause of action. The proposed amendment seeks to
complete it. An amendment to the effect that the
requirements of Article 222 have been complied with does
not confer jurisdiction upon the lower court. With or
without this amendment, the subject-matter of the action
remains as one for support, custody of children, and
damages, cognizable by the court below.
To illustrate, Tamayo v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc.,[17]
allowed an amendment which “merely corrected a defect in
the allegation of plaintiff-appellant’s cause of action, because
as it then stood, the original complaint stated no cause of
action.” We there ruled out as inapplicable the holding in
Campos Rueda Corporation v. Bautista,[18] that an
amendment cannot be made so as to confer jurisdiction on
the court x x x. (Italics supplied).
_______________
[16] 135 Phil. 84, 94; 26 SCRA 78, 87 (1968).
[17] 119 Phil. 368; 10 SCRA 115 (1964).
[18] 116 Phil. 546; 6 SCRA 240 (1962).
580
Thus was it made clear that a failure to allege earnest but

failed efforts at a compromise in a complaint among
members of the same family, is not a jurisdictional defect
but merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action.
Versoza was cited in a later case as an instance analogous

to one where the conciliation process at the barangay level
was not priorly resorted to. Both were described as a
“condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in
Court.”[19] In such instances, the consequence is precisely
what is stated in the present Rule. Thus:
x x x The defect may however be waived by failing to

make seasonable objection, in a motion to dismiss or
answer, the defect being a mere procedural imperfection
which does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.[20]
(Underscoring supplied).
In the case at hand, the proceedings before the trial

court ran the full course. The complaint of petitioners was
answered by respondents without a prior motion to dismiss
having been filed. The decision in favor of the petitioners
was appealed by respondents on the basis of the alleged
error in the ruling on the merits, no mention having been
made about any defect in the statement of a cause of
action. In other words, no motion to dismiss the complaint
based on the failure to comply with a condition precedent
was filed in the trial court; neither was such failure
assigned as error in the appeal that respondent brought
before the Court of Appeals.
Therefore, the rule on deemed waiver of the non-juris-
dictional defense or objection is wholly applicable to
respondent. If the respondents as parties-defendants could
not, and
_______________
[19] Peregrina v. Hon. Panis, 218 Phil. 90, 92; 133 SCRA 72, 75 (1984).
[20] Agbayani v. Hon. Belen, 230 Phil. 39, 42; 145 SCRA 635, 638 (1986)
citing Catorce v. Court of Appeals, 214 Phil. 181; 129 SCRA 210 (1984).
581
did not, after filing their answer to petitioner’s complaint,

invoke the objection of absence of the required allegation on
earnest efforts at a compromise, the appellate court
unquestionably did not have any authority or basis to motu
propio order the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint.
Indeed, even if we go by the reason behind Article 151 of
the Family Code, which provision as then Article 222 of the
New Civil Code was described as “having been given more
teeth”[21] by Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, it is
safe to say that the purpose of making sure that there is no
longer any possibility of a compromise, has been served. As

cited in commentaries on Article 151 of the Family Code —
This rule is introduced because it is difficult to imagine a

sudden and more tragic spectacle than a litigation between
members of the same family. It is necessary that every
effort should be made towards a compromise before a
litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family.
It is known that a lawsuit between close relatives generates
deeper bitterness than between strangers.[22]
The facts of the case show that compromise was never

an option insofar as the respondents were concerned. The
impossibility of compromise instead of litigation was shown
not alone by the absence of a motion to dismiss but on the
respondents’ insistence on the validity of the donation in
their favor of the subject properties. Nor could it have been
otherwise because the Pre-trial Order specifically limited
the issues to the validity of the deed and whether or not
respondent Juana and Mariano are compulsory heirs of Dr.
Favis. Respondents not only confined their arguments
within the pre-trial order; after losing their case, their
appeal was based on the proposition that it was error for
the trial court to have
_______________
[21] Verzosa v. Verzosa, supra note 16 at p. 88; p. 82.
[22] Paras, Report of the Code Commission, Code Commission of the
Philippines Annotated, 14th Ed., Vol. 1, p. 579.
582
relied on the ground of vitiated consent on the part of Dr.

Favis.
The Court of Appeals ignored the facts of the case that
clearly demonstrated the refusal by the respondents to
compromise. Instead it ordered the dismissal of petitioner’s
complaint on the ground that it did not allege what in fact
was shown during the trial. The error of the Court of
Appeals is patent.
Unfortunately for respondents, they relied completely on
the erroneous ruling of the Court of Appeals even when
petitioners came to us for review not just on the basis of
such defective motu proprio action but also on the
proposition that the trial court correctly found that the
donation in question is flawed because of vitiated consent.
Respondents did not answer this argument.
The trial court stated that the facts are:
x x x To determine the intrinsic validity of the deed of

donation subject of the action for annulment, the mental
state/condition of the donor Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. at the
time of its execution must be taken into account. Factors
such as his age, health and environment among others
should be considered. As testified to by Dr. Mercedes Favis,
corroborated by Dr. Edgardo Alday and Dra. Ofelia Adapon,
who were all presented as expert witnesses, Dr. Mariano
Favis, Sr. had long been suffering from Hiatal Hernia and
Parkinson’s disease and had been taking medications for
years. That a person with Parkinson’s disease for a long
time may not have a good functioning brain because in the
later stage of the disease, 1/3 of death develop from this
kind of disease, and or dementia. With respect to Hiatal
Hernia, this is a state wherein organs in the abdominal
cavity would go up to the chest cavity, thereby occupying
the space for the lungs causing the lungs to be
compromised. Once the lungs are affected, there is less
oxygenation to the brain. The Hernia would cause the heart
not to pump enough oxygen to the brain and the effect
would be chronic, meaning, longer lack of oxygenation to the
brain will
583
make a person not in full control of his faculties. Dr. Alday

further testified that during his stay with the house of Dr.
Mariano Favis, Sr. (1992-1994), he noticed that the latter
when he goes up and down the stairs will stop after few
seconds, and he called this pulmonary cripple — a very
advanced stage wherein the lungs not only one lung, but
both lungs are compromised. That at the time he operated
on the deceased, the left and right lung were functioning
but the left lung is practically not even five (5%) percent
functioning since it was occupied by abdominal organ. x x x.
Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. during the execution of the Deed
of Donation was already 92 years old; living with the
defendants and those years from 1993 to 1995 were the
critical years when he was sick most of the time. In short,
he’s dependent on the care of his housemates particularly
the members of his family. It is the contention of the
defendants though that Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. had full
control of his mind during the execution of the Deed of
Donation because at that time, he could go on with the
regular way of life or could perform his daily routine
without the aid of anybody like taking a bath, eating his
meals, reading the newspaper, watching television, go to
the church on Sundays, walking down the plaza to exercise
and most importantly go to the cockpit arena and bet. Dr.
Ofelia Adapon, a neurology expert however, testified that a

person suffering from Parkinson’s disease when he goes to
the cockpit does not necessarily mean that such person has
in full control of his mental faculties because anyone, even a
retarded person, a person who has not studied and have no
intellect can go to the cockpit and bet. One can do
everything but do not have control of his mind. x x x That
Hiatal Hernia creeps in very insidiously, one is not sure
especially if the person has not complained and no
examination was done. It could be there for the last time
and no one will know. x x x.
The Deed of Donation in favor of the defendants Ma.
Theresa, Joana D. Favis, Maria Cristina D. Favis, James
Mark D. Favis and Maria Thea D. Favis, all of
584
whom are the children of Mariano G. Favis, Jr. was

executed on [16 October] 1994, seven (7) months after Dra.
Mercedes Favis left the house of Dr. Favis, Sr. at Bonifacio
St., Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, where she resided with the latter
and the defendants.
Putting together the circumstances mentioned, that at
the time of the execution of the Deed of Donation, Dr.
Mariano Favis, Sr. was already at an advanced age of 92,
afflicted with different illnesses like Hiatal hernia,
Parkinsons’ disease and pneumonia, to name few, which
illnesses had the effects of impairing his brain or mental
faculties and the deed being executed only when Dra.
Me[r]cedes Favis had already left his father’s residence
when Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. could have done so earlier or
even in the presence of Dra. Mercedes Favis, at the time he
executed the Deed of Donation was not in full control of his
mental faculties. That although age of senility varies from
one person to another, to reach the age of 92 with all those
medications and treatment one have received for those
illnesses, yet claim that his mind remains unimpaired,
would be unusual. The fact that the Deed of Donation was
only executed after Dra. Mercedes Favis left his father’s
house necessarily indicates that they don’t want the same to
be known by the first family, which is an indicia of bad faith
on the part of the defendant, who at that time had influence
over the donor.[23]
The correctness of the finding was not touched by the

Court of Appeals. The respondents opted to rely only on
what the appellate court considered, erroneously though,
was a procedural infirmity. The trial court’s factual finding,
therefore, stands unreversed; and respondents did not

provide us with any argument to have it reversed.
The issue of the validity of donation was fully litigated
and discussed by the trial court. Indeed, the trial court’s
findings were placed at issue before the Court of Appeals
but the appellate court chose to confine its review to the
procedural
_______________
[23] Rollo, pp. 433-435.
585
aspect. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, even if it

dealt only with procedure, is deemed to have covered all
issues including the correctness of the factual findings of
the trial court. Moreover, remanding the case to the Court
of Appeals would only constitute unwarranted delay in the
final disposition of the case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 20 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perlas-

Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and set aside.
Notes.—To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay

must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary resulting in
the trifling of court processes. (Republic vs. Heirs of
Enrique Oribello, Jr., 692 SCRA 645 [2013])
Not all petitions or complaints reach reply or
memorandum stage. Depending on the merits of the case,
the Court has the discretion either to proceed with the case
by first requiring the parties to file their respective
responsive pleadings or to dismiss the same outright.
(Rodica vs. Lazaro, 693 SCRA 273 [2013])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Favis Vs Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Favis Vs Gonzales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Favis Vs Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 713

G.R. No. 185922. January 15, 2014.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; Under

appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that it has no

has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is another

deemed waived. There are, as just noted, only four exceptions to

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86497 dismissing

1. A parcel of residential land located at Bonifacio St.

bounded on the North by the High School Site; on the East

5. A parcel of orchard land located in Brgy. VI, Vigan,

On 16 October 1994, he allegedly executed a Deed of

In a Decision dated 14 November 2005, the RTC nullified

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing

(P130,000.00) pesos per annum from the death of Dr.

Respondents interposed an appeal before the Court of

did so not on the grounds invoked by herein respondents as

1. The Honorable Court of Appeals GRAVELY and

2. Contrary to the finding of the Honorable Court of

nonissue considering that private respondents are in

In their Comment, respondents chose not to touch upon

The base issue is whether or not the appellate court may

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

The appellate court correlated this provision with

Section 1. Grounds.—Within the time for but before

(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not

The appellate court’s reliance on this provision is

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.—

Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when

x x x [T]he motu proprio dismissal of a case was

[10] P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corp.,

for the same cause, or where the action is barred by a prior

The error of the Court of Appeals is evident even if the

grounds. The tenor of the second sentence of the Rule is

The alleged defect is that the present complaint does not

Thus was it made clear that a failure to allege earnest but

Versoza was cited in a later case as an instance analogous

x x x The defect may however be waived by failing to

In the case at hand, the proceedings before the trial

did not, after filing their answer to petitioner’s complaint,

longer any possibility of a compromise, has been served. As

This rule is introduced because it is difficult to imagine a

The facts of the case show that compromise was never

relied on the ground of vitiated consent on the part of Dr.

x x x To determine the intrinsic validity of the deed of

make a person not in full control of his faculties. Dr. Alday

Ofelia Adapon, a neurology expert however, testified that a

whom are the children of Mariano G. Favis, Jr. was

The correctness of the finding was not touched by the

therefore, stands unreversed; and respondents did not

aspect. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, even if it

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perlas-

Judgment reversed and set aside.

Notes.—To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like