You are on page 1of 1

SIARI VALLEY v.

LUCASAN
G.R. No. L-13281
August 31, 1960
Siari
Valley
Estates,
Inc.
petitioners
responden Filemon Lucasan, et al.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.

Villarroya

ts
summary A judgment for a sum of money was rendered against Lucasan. He appealed

the decision to the SC. While on appeal, he extra judicially constituted one of
his properties as his family home. The SC affirmed the judgment against him
and issued a writ of execution. In carrying out the writ, the sheriff levied and
sold parcels of land belonging to Lucasan (including his family home). Lucasan
opposed on the ground that the same is exempt from execution. SC held that it
is NOT exempt since the constitution of the family home was done AFTER he
incurred the debt. A judgment for a sum of money, even on appeal, is still
considered a debt under the Civil Code. The ratio for this is to protect creditors
from debtors who may act in bad faith.

facts of the case

The CFI of Zamboanga del Norte rendered a decision ordering Filemon Lucasan to pay a total
of P80,000 (debt + damages) to the Siari Valley Estates, Inc. The case was appealed to the SC.
During appeal, Lucasan extrajudicially constituted one of his properties as his family home. The
SC affirmed the money judgment and the same became final and executory.
In carrying out the writ of execution, the sheriff levied on certain parcels of land, including the
family home, belonging to Lucasan. These lands were sold at public auction to Siara Valley as the
highest bidder. Lucasan contended that said lot and house, having been constituted as a family
home, are beyond the reach of judicial execution.
Article 243 (2) of the new Civil Code states: The family home extra judicially formed shall be
exempt from execution EXCEPT for debts incurred before the declaration was recorded in the
Registry of Property.

issue

Can a judgment for a sum of money be considered a debt even if said judgment is still pending
appeal? Yes. Since Lucasan constituted the family home AFTER incurring the debt, it is
not exempt from execution in accordance with the Civil Code.

ratio

Lucasan sustains the view that the money judgment rendered against him was appealed to
the SC in which event, he contends, the same could not be considered as a debt at the time the
family home was constituted for it was still inchoate and as such cannot come under the above
provision.
His contention has no merit.
The reason why a family home constituted after a debt had been incurred is not exempt from
execution is to protect the creditor against a debtor who may act in bad faith by resorting to such
declaration just to defeat the claim against him. If the purpose is to protect the creditor from
fraud, it would be immaterial if the debt incurred be undisputed or inchoate, for a debtor acting
in good faith would prefer to wait until his case is definitely decided before constituting the
family home. If the contention of respondent be sustained a debtor may be allowed to
circumvent this provision of the law to the prejudice of the creditor.