You are on page 1of 4

Josef v. Santos, G.R. No.

165060
November 27, 2008, Ynares-Santiago, J.
DOCTRINE: The family home is the dwelling place of a person and his family, a sacred symbol of family love and
repository of cherished memories that last during one’s lifetime. It is the sanctuary of that union which the law
declares and protects as a sacred institution; and likewise a shelter for the fruits of that union. It is where both can
seek refuge and strengthen the tie that binds them together and which ultimately forms the moral fabric of our
nation. (Nature and Characteristics)
FACTS:
 Petitioner Albino Josef was the defendant in the civil case for collection of sum of money filed by herein
respondent Otelio Santos, who claimed that petitioner failed to pay the shoe materials which he bought on
credit from respondent on various dates in 1994.
 RTC found petitioner to be liable to respondent in the amount of P404,836.50 with interest at 12% per annum
reckoned from January 9, 1995 until full payment.
 Petitioner appealed before the CA which affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.
 A writ of execution was issued which includes a real property located at Marikina City.
 Petitioner filed an original petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the sheriff’s levy and
sale of the abovementioned personal and real properties. Petitioner claimed that the personal properties did
not belong to him but to his children; and that the real property was his family home thus exempt from
execution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the levy and sale of the personal belongings of the petitioner’s children as well as the
attachment and sale on public auction of his family home to satisfy the judgment award in favor of respondent is
legal.
RULING: No, the levy and sale of the real property is illegal under civil laws. The family home is a real right which
is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is
situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with the
person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases. Moreover, the
State has a constitutional and moral duty to preserve and protect, as well as petitioner’s constitutional right to
abode, all procedural infirmities occasioned upon this case must take a back seat to the substantive questions which
deserve to be answered in full.
The writ of execution is hereby void.

177703 January 28. Hence. the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution. petitioner. DOCTRINE: Art. family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. the subject house as well as the specific portion of the subject land on which it stands are deemed constituted as a family home by the deceased and petitioner Vilma from the moment they began occupying the same as a family residence. Therefore. applying these concepts. Thus. the subject house is exempted from partition by public auction within the period provided in this code. No. 2008. Article 153 of the Family Code expressly provides that.  Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same in its Resolution. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. Arriola. ISSUE: Whether the subject house should be sold at public auction as ordered by the RTC. without prejudice to the rights of creditors or mortgages. RULING: No. his second wife and his other son. FACTS:  Fidel Arriola died and is survived by his legal heirs. and Vilma G. The petitioners initially agreed but refused to include in the auction the house standing on the subject land.  However.  RTC rendered a decision ordering the partition of the parcel of land among his heirs in equal shares of 1/3 each. the present petition. forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law. G. J. Anthony Ronald Arriola. John NaborArriola. respondent which was his son with his first wife. 153. the sheriff is ordered to proceed with the public auction sale of the subject lot including the house constructed thereon. Arriola.Arriola v. Austria-Martinez.  Despite complaints raised. .R. the parties failed to agree on how to divide the abovementioned property and so the respondent proposed to sell it through public auction.

Panganiban. The residential house and lot of petitioner became a family home by operation of law under Article 153 of the Family Code. the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution. are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and henceforth. . The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein. are exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3..000.F. in consideration of P75.  However. No. Commonwealth Avenue. 1997. RULING: Yes. the writ of execution shall apply. F.Manacop v. petitioner’s included.  The petitioner failed to pay the sub-contract cost pursuant to a deed of assignment signed between petitioner’s corporation and private respondent. 153. Quezon City. Manacop Construction Co.00 located in Commonwealth Village. it preceded the effectivity of the Code and his property is therefore not exempt form attachment. DOCTRINE: Art. 1988.R. J. Manacop insists that the attached property is a family home having been occupied by him and his family since 1972 and is therefore exempt from attachment. Court of Appeals. G. Inc. ISSUE: Whether or not a final and executory decision promulgated and a writ of execution issued before the effectivity of the Family Code can be executed on a family home constituted under the provisions of the said Code. 97898 August 11. Such provision does not mean that said article has a retroactive effect such that all existing family residences. forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law.  Private respondent filed a complaint for the recovery for the sum of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment against the former. Since petitioner incurred debt in 1987. FACTS:  Petitioner Florante Manacop and his wife Eulaceli purchased a 446-square-meter residential lot with a bungalow.

G. DOCTRINE: Art. or of the spouse who consented to the constitution of his or her separate property as family home. and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor.Patricio v. Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. RULING: No. ISSUE: Whether the partition of the family home is proper despite Dario III’s refusal on the ground that a minor beneficiary still resides in the said home. The family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary. 159. the property may be partitioned by the heirs. No. FACTS:  Marcelino V. He was survived by his wife. QC.R. the family home may be preserved for a minimum of 10 years following the death of the spouses or the unmarried family head who constituted the family home. J. Patricio and their two sons. Dario died intestate.  The trial court also ordered the sale of the property by public auction wherein all parties concerned may put up their bids. Dario III. petitioner Perla G.  Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the trial court. Among the properties he left was a parcel of land with a residential house and a pre-school building built thereon situated at 91 Oxford corner Ermin Garcia Streets in Cubao. After these periods lapse. petitioner and Marcelino Marc formally advised Dario III of their intention to partition the subject property and terminate the co-ownership. 2006. Dario III. it is not proper. This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home. After 10 years and a minor beneficiary still lives therein. Private respondent refused to partition the property hence petitioner and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition before the RTC. Ynares-Santiago. As a general rule. The appellate court partially reconsidered the decision. the subject property should be distributed accordingly in the aforestated manner. . 170829 November 20. In case of failure. the family home shall be preserved only until that minor beneficiary reaches the age of majority. Quezon City  Thereafter.