Tribiana vs Tribiana

-

EDWIN N. TRIBIANA vs. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA

G.R. No. 137359. September 13, 2004

FACTS:

Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since 1996 but formalized their union only on 28 October 1997. On 30 April 1998, Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC claiming that Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, (Khriza). Edwin has since deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza who was then only one (1) year and four (4) months of age. Later, it turned out that Khriza was being held by Edwin’s mother, Rosalina Tribiana. 
Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes’ petition on the ground that the petition failed to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made before its filing as required by Article 151 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not failure to allege compromise proceedings in a petition is a ground for dismissal.

HELD: NO.

Lourdes has complied with the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code. She attached a Barangay Certification to File Action dated 1 May 1998. Edwin does not dispute the authenticity of the Barangay Certification and its contents. This effectively established that the parties tried to compromise but were unsuccessful in their efforts.

 A dismissal under Section 1(j) of Rule 16 is warranted only if there is a failure to comply with a condition precedent. Here, petition for habeas corpus filed by Lourdes failed to allege that she resorted to compromise proceedings before filing the petition. 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 because it is not  a jurisdictional defect, but an amendment under Section 1 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It would have been a different matter if Edwin had asserted that no efforts to arrive at a compromise have been made at all.

 In addition, the failure of a party to comply with a condition precedent is not a jurisdictional defect. If a party fails to raise such defect in a motion to dismiss, such defect is deemed waived. Such defect is curable by amendment as a matter of right without leave of court, if made before the filing of a responsive pleading.
Moreover, in a habeas corpus proceeding involving the welfare and custody of a child of tender age, the paramount concern is to resolve immediately the issue of who has legal custody of the child. Technicalities should not stand in the way of giving such child of tender age full protection. This rule has sound statutory basis in Article 213 of the Family Code, which states, No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise. In this case, the child (Khriza) was only one year and four months when taken away from the mother.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rodrigo, Jr. -vs- Sandiganbayan

-
CONRADO B. RODRIGO, JR., ALEJANDRO A. FACUNDO and REYNALDO G. MEJICA, Petitioners, vs THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. G.R. No. 125498. February 18, 1999. DECISION : Petitioner mayor’s position having been classified as Grade 27 in accordance with R.A. No. 6758, and having been charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as defined by Section 4 a. of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975. By virtue of the same Section 4 a., as amended, his co-accused are also subject to the Anti-Graft Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, a local government official’s actual salary may be less than what the Salary Schedule under Section 7 prescribes, depending on the class and financial capability of his or her respective local government unit. This circumstance, however, has no bearing on such official’s Grade. As the foregoing discussion
Read more

SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO

-
SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO G.R. No. 185064. January 16, 2012 FACTS: Sometime in September 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio D. Acero, Jr. in the amount of P100,000.00, which was secured by a mortgage over the property, where a house was constructed thereon in 1987, they jointly purchased in 1984 while they were still merely cohabiting before their marriage. As payment, Araceli issued a check payable to Claudio. But it was dishonored as the account from which it was drawn had already been closed. The petitioners failed to heed Claudio’s subsequent demand for payment. Thus, on April 26, 1990, Claudio filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against the petitioners. In 1992, the RTC rendered a Decision acquitting the petitioners but ordering them to pay Claudio the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from date of demand until fully paid. In 1993, a writ of execution was issued and Sheriff Samonte levied upon the subject property. On M
Read more