The phrase "members of the same family"in Art. 151 of the Family Code must be understood as referring to the relations enumerated in Art. 150 of the Family Code under which "family relations" include only those (a) between husband and wife, (b) between parent and child, (c) among other ascendants and their descendants, and (d) among brothers and sisters. Hence, if there is a stranger to the suit, such as a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law, compliance with Article 151 is not jurisdictional for the maintenance of the action.
"Efforts to compromise" are not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the maintenance of an action whenever a stranger to the family is a party thereto, whether as necessary or indispensable one. An alien to the family may not be willing to suffer the inconvenience of, much less relish, the delay and the complications that wranglings between and among relatives more often than not entail. Besides, it is neither practical nor fair that the rights of a family be made to depend on a stranger who just happens to have innocently acquired some interest in a property by virtue of his affinity to the parties. ((Esquivas vs. CA, G.R. No. 119714, May 29, 1997 citing Magbenta vs. Gonong, No. L-44903, 22 April 1977, 76 SCRA 511)
