THE FAMILY HOME

SIARI VALLEY ESTATE vs LUCASAN

-

CFI ordered Filemon Lucasan to pay

80k to SVE. (damages and value of
cattle)
- Writ of execution was issued.
- Sheriff levied on lands
of the
defendant. The lands were sold to the
highest bidder.
- Lucasan
files
an
opposition
challenging the validity of the
execution since one of the lands
auctioned was the land where he
extrajudicially constituted as the
family home.
ISSUE: Is Lucasans family home which
was extrajudicially established exempt
from execution?
HELD: NO.
- The family home is exempt from
execution EXCEPT when a debt is
incurred before the family home was
registered (CC art 243).
- The reason for this is to protect
creditors from a debtor who may act in
bad faith by making such property a
supposed family home for the sole
purpose of defeating the claim against
him.
SIDE ISSUE: Levy was still ordered as
invalid because of other issues (re:
technicalities on the registry of deeds).
MODEQUILLO vs BREVA
-

Jose Modequillo was ordered by court

to pay for damages (JAN 29, 1988).
The sheriff levied on a parcel of
residential land and a parcel of
agricultural land.
Modequillo filed motion to quash the
levy of execution because the
residential land which he owned is
where his family home is is built (since
1969). As such, it should be exempt
from execution.
Respondents say that the said house
and lot only became a family home in
1988, when the family code took
effect.
Respondents say that under the Civil
Code, the house and lot did not qualify
as a family home. Since the FC

provision on family homes do not

retroact.
ISSUE: Does the FC provision on family
homes retroact?
HELD: NO
- The house and lot became a family
home upon the effectivity of the FC in
AUG 3 1988, BUT it doesnt mean that
all family residences not considered
then as family homes prior to the FC
would be retroactively deemed as
family homes at the time of their
occupation.
- Since the debt whice arose from the
time of the vehicaular accident(1976)
and the judgement was before the
effectivity of the FC, it is not exempt
from execution.
TANEO vs CA
-

Judgement was rendered to Taneo

ordering him to pay Gilig in JUNE 1964.
- The sheriff levied two properties of
Taneo: a lot and a residential house.
- Taneo is saying that the residential
house is their family home thus
exempt from execution.
ISSUE: Is Taneos family home exempt
from execution?
HELD: NO. A debt was incurred before the
house was deemed a family home.
- Before the effectivity of the FC, a
family home must be constituted
judicially (filing of petition) and extrajudicially (registration).
- It turns out:
o The instrument constituting the
family home was registered only
in JAN 24 1966.
o The money judgement was
rendered on JAN 24 1964.
- The family home is not exempt from
execution since there was a debt
incurred before the registration of the
house as a family home.
VERSOLA vs CA
-

Dolores Ledesma secured a P1m loan

from Dra Oh.
Ledesma sold the house and lot to
petitioners Eduardo and Elsa Versola
for 2.5m with a downpayment of 1m.

Ledesma asked for the rest of the

payment. Petitioners were only able to
give 50k.
- Petitioners secured a loan from
Asiatrust Bank to pay for their
remaining balance.
- Bank settled an agreement between
parties that Dr. Oh will give another
450k to Ledesma making her debt
1.45m.
- Spouses should execute a mortgage to
secure a loan of 2m.
- When Asiatrust tried to register the
mortgage of the spouses, it discovered
a notice of levy of execution on the
title in connection with another of
Ledesmas to Miladays Jewels, Inc.
- Asiatrust refused to grant 2m loan to
the spouses.
- Dra Oh filed case against Asiatrust,
petitioners,
and
Ledesma.
RTC
favoured Dra Oh and sheriff auctioned
the said house.
- The petitioners objected to this
auction saying that the house is their
family home and should not be subject
to execution.
HELD: The house is not exempted from
execution.
- It is not sufficient that the person
claiming exemption merely alleges
that such property is a family home.
The claim must be proved to the
Sheriff.
- The records in the case do not disclose
that petitioners proved that the
property to be sold was FH. They
simply alleged it, and presupposed
that the sheriff already knew of such.
- They
rigorously
asserted
such
exemption only 2 years after the date
of the auction sale.
- Their
assertion
for
exemption,
therefore, is a mere afterthought, a
sheer artifice to deprive private
respondent of the fruits of the verdict
of her case.
PATRICIO vs DARIO III
-

DARIO IIIs mother and brother wanted

to partition the house left by his
father.
DARIO III is saying that the subject
property is a family home since a

minor beneficiary is still living inside

the house, DARIO IIIs 12 yr old son.
- FC states that if there are beneficiaries
who still survive and living in the
family home, it will continue to be as
such for 10 more years.
ISSUE: Is DARIO IIIs son still considered
as a beneficiary?
HELD: NO.
- Three requisites must be satisfied for a
person to be considered as a
beneficiary.
o They must fall under the
relationship contemplated in
ART 154 FC.
o They live in the family home.
o They are dependent for legal
support from the head of the
family.
- The 12 yr old grandchild does fall
under the categories of the beneficiary
under 154 FC. (Descendants includes
grandchildren
and
great
grandchildren)
- The 12 yr old grandchild does live in
the house.
- BUT as for the third requisite, the
grandchild does not satisfy because he
cannot demand support from his
paternal grandparents since HE HAS
PARENTS capable of supporting him.
VENERACION vs MANCILLA
-

Elizabeth Mendinueta, mother of the

petitioner, got a loan of P1.2M from
Charlie Mancilla.
Elizabeth mortgaged her house as
security for the loan.
Elizabeth was not able to pay the debt
which urged Mancilla to file a case for
foreclosure of Elizabeths property.
Elizabeth opposed Mancillas claim,
she was praying for the court to lower
the interest from 5% to 3%. The
prayer was denied and the judgement
became final and executory.
The house of Elizabeth was sold
through an auction.
A daughter of Elizabeth replaced her in
the case since she already died. The
daughter
now
points
out
that
mortgage should be considered invalid
because the property mortgaged is a
family home.

ISSUE: Is the Property mortgaged to pay

for the debt exempt from execution?
HELD: NO
- When Elizabeth opposed the execution
of the debt, she did not raise the issue
of the property being a family home.
She was merely praying that the
interest be lowered.
- Because of this, the issue of the
property being a family home was not
merited because it was not raised at
the earliest possible opportunity, not
as a mere afterthought.
ARRIOLA vs ARRIOLA
- Fidel had two wives and had a child
from both marriages.
- Fidel died and left a parcel of land.
- The 2nd wife, the son from the first M,
and the son from the 2nd M did not
agree on how to partition the land left
by Fidel.
- The son from the first M then sought
to sell the land through public auction.
- The 2nd W and son from 2 nd M are
challenging the validity of the sale,
saying that a house (which is
constituted as a family home) is
erected on the land.
ISSUE: WoN the auction should include
the house erected.
HELD: NO
- The family home is deemed to have
been constituted by the time the
family sets in the house and continues
to be so 10 years after the death of
the head of the family or until a
beneficiary who is a minor is still
residing in the famly home.
- In this case, Fidel died March 10, 2003,
the house cannot be auctioned up
until March 10 2013.
- The house cannot be auctioned
moreover
if
they
cannot
give
compelling reasons for the court to
think otherwise and ISSUE a partition
of the property.
SPOUSES KELLEY vs PLANTERS
-

Auther Kelly failed to pay his debt to

Planters Product Inc which made PPI
file and action against Kelley.
Makati RTC favored PPI and thus order
an execution of sale of his property
w/c was in Naga.

Auther and the wife filed a motion to

set aside the said execution because
the property in Naga is their Family
home. (w/c the RTC denied)
- The spouses then prayed for the NAGA
RTC to anull the execution made on
their home for the same ground.
- Naga RTC denied the prayer for their
lack of jurisdiction.
- Petitioners appealed to SC
ISSUE: Can the property be exempted
from execution?
HELD: Partially granted to the extent of
letting the petitioners adduce evidence to
support their claim.
- SC held that since the only parties to
the original action was Auther and PPI,
Kelly was a stranger to the litigation
held in Makati RTC.
- Because of this, the SC held that the
NAGA RTC has jurisdiction over the
case.
- **CASE REMANDED***
JOSEF vs SANTOS
-

Marikini RTC held Petitioner Albino

Josef liable to Otelio Santos for not
being able to pay for shoe materials.
- Santos moved for the issuance of
execution w/c was opposed by the
Albino. Motion was granted (to be
levied upon Albinos property).
- Albino petitioned to CA saying that the
property is their family home (which
would make it exempt), w/c the CA
dismissed for procedural issues.
- Albino appeals to SC.
ISSUE: Can the property be held exempt
from execution?
HELD: YES
- The trial court erred when is
completely ignored Albinos opposition
to the execution on his property even
when he was able to do so before the
auction.
They
should
have
investigated on that matter.
- The CA likewise erred when it
dismissed the petition of Albino on
mere procedural grounds, considering
the gravity of the situation.
- Although the claim for exemption is
only being taken up in the Supreme
Court (when the execution was already
finished), the SC still granted the

petition because he was able to raise

it on time (and he was just ignored).
The petition was granted also because
the case involved matters that strikes
the heart of the basic social
institution.

before the children were born, thereby

giving rise to the presumption that the
children are legitimate.
LIYAO JR vs TANHOTI-LIYAO
-

PATERNITY AND FILITATION

-LEGITIMATE CHILDREN
-KINDS OF FILITATION
-BIOLOGICAL NATURAL
PERIDO vs. PERIDO
-

Lucio Perido married twice during his

lifetime. He died on 1942
- The children and grandchildren from
his first and second marriages
executed
a
document
entitled
Declaration of Heirship and ExtraJudicial Partition where they would
partition amongst themselves the
estate of Lucio.
- Eventually, the heirs from the first
marriage backed out from said
partition.
- They now say that they are exclusive
heirs of the estate since ALL FIVE
CHILDREN of LUCIO are illegitimate
and have no succesional rights.
- Heirs from the 1st M say that the first
three children from the 2nd M are born
before the 1st wife died in 1905,
therefore proving that they were born
out of wedlock.
- The last two were also born out of
wedlock as testified by the heirs from
the 1st M
- The case reached the SC, hence the
instant case
ISSUE: WoN the children are legitimate?
HELD: YES
- It was found out that the 1st wife died
during the Spanish regime, therefore
disproving the theory that the three
children were born out of wedlock
- The certificate of titles indicating that
he was single and the testimonies
saying that the children were born out
of wedlock were not sufficient to
overcome the presumption of the
capacity of M.
- Lucio and the 2nd wife, who were w/o
impediments to marry, were already
living together as husband and wife

William Liyao, Jr, represented by his

mother Corazon Garcia filed a civil
case
praying
that
William
be
recognized as the illegitimate child of
William Liyao, Sr.
- Although Corazon Garcia was married
to Ramon Yulo, she says that she &
Liyao Sr had an adulterous relationship
where they begot Liyao Jr.
- After a lengthy presentation of
evidence from the lower courts for
filiation, the SC stated the proper issue
to be tackled
ISSUE: Won William Jr can impugn his
own legitimacy to be able to claim from
the estate of his supposed father, William
Sr.
HELD: He cannot.
- A child born during the existence of a
valid M is presumed to be legitimate.
In this case, since William Jr is born
during the M of Corazon Garcia and
Ramon Yulo, he is presumed to be
their legitimate son.
- Also, the right to impugn the
legitimacy of the child only resides
upon his presumed legitimate father,
Ramon Yulo.
- The CC does permit the heirs to
impugn their own legitimacies but only
upon
exceptional
cases
(when
confronted with scandals).
- William Jr, cannot choose his own
filiation. If the H, presumed to be the
father,
does
not
impugn
the
legitimacy, then the status of the child
is fixed.
SSS vs Aguas
-

Pablo Aguas, a member and pensioner

of the SSS died on 1996.
The surviving spouse, Rosanna, filed
the claim for death benefits. She also
stated that Pablo was survived by a 12
yr old child, Jeylnn. (JEYLIN NALANG)
SSS granted her the death benefits
until the sister of Pablo contested her
claim by saying that she abandoned
the family home and lived with

another man. She also says that Pablo

and Rosana had no children. She also
presented the BC of one Jefren dela
Pena w/c indicates that the mother is
Rosanna and the father is one Romeo
dela Pena.
- SSS suspended her benefits.
- This prompted Rosanna to file a
petition for the restoration of the
benefits. She presented:
o Their M certificate.
o Janets Cert of Live birth.
o Jeylnns Cert of live birth.
o Pablos death cert.
Issue: Won Rosanna, Janet, and Jeylnn are
entitled to the death benefits.
Held: Yes for Jeylnn, and NO for Janet and
Rosanna.
- Jeylnns clain is justified by her BC w/c
was authenticated by the civil registry.
It indicated there that Rosanna and

Pablo were Married on 1977 and Jeylnn

was born on 1996. The BC was also
signed by Pablo strengthening the
proof of his paternity.
Janets birth date was not substantially
proven since the BC was not
authenticated by the registry. It was
only a mere photocopy and is w/o
probative weight.
Also, it appears that she was merely
adopted by Pablo and Rosanna w/o
undergoing any legal proceedings for
adoption. Since RA 1161 considers
only legally adopted children as
dependents, she cannot be considered
as such.
As for Rosanna, she was not able to
present evidence that she was
dependent upon the support of Pablo
at the time of his death even though
they were already living separately.