Topic: Kelley vs Planters Products, Inc

557 SCRA 499

July 9, 2008
Facts:
1. In 1989, Auther G. Kelley acquired agricultural chemical products on consignment from
Planter Products, Inc.
2. Auther failed to pay despite demand.
3. PPI filed an action for sum of money against Auther in Makati RTC. Consequently,
Makati RTC issued writ of execution against Auther.
4. Respondent Sheriff Jorge A. Ragutana sold on execution real property covered by TCT
No. 15079 located in Naga City and the certificate of sale was issued in favor of PPI.
5. Petitioners (Kelley spouses) filed a motion to dissolve or set aside the notice of levy in
the Makati RTC on the ground that the subject property was their family home, and such
must be exempt from execution. Petition was denied for failure to comply with the 3-day
notice requirement.
6. Petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of levy and sale of the alleged
family home with damages against Ragutana and PPI in RTC of Naga City. The case was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. Decision was upheld by
CA.
7. Petitioners filed for review on certiorari contending that the CA erred in upholding the
dismissal of their petition in Naga RTC.
8. The courts granted the only to the extent fo allowing petitioners to adduce evidence in the
trial court that TCT No. 15079 is in fact their family home as constituted in accordance
with the requirements of law.
9. The case was reinstated and is hereby remanded to the RTC of Naga City.
Issue: Whether the subject property in Naga City the family home of Auther and Doris Kelley
and is exempt from execution.

Ruling:
Under the Family Code, a family home is generally exempt from execution provided it
was duly constituted as such and that it must not be included in the exceptions provided by
Article 155 of the Family Code. Petitioners anchored their petition for nullity of levy and sale of
the subject property on Family Code Articles 152-155. For a property to be considered as a
family home it has to be proven that said property was constituted jointly by the husband and
wife or by an unmarried head of a family, and that it must be where their family actually resides.
The court granted petitioners to provide reasonable evidence that the subject property is actually
the family home of the Kelley family and is not subject to the exceptions provided by Article 155
of the Family Code for it to be exempt from execution. The case was reinstated and is hereby
remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Naga City.