You are on page 1of 5

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2558/4689982.

doc \ 1

Mendoza v. CA Felisa, Amos, Toribia & Macario (all Bionson except Zoila) be declared as
Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of CA. 1967. rightful owners of 1/3 of each parcel of land & Matilde, Marina, Ponciano & Leon
(all Bionson) as lawful owners of 1/3 of each of said properties. They likewise
FACTS: prayed for physical partition of parcels into 3 equal parts & each part be
Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza was married to Cecilio Mendoza in Sept 1953. They lived assigned to specific declared owners.
together as H&W until H Cecilio left for further studies in the US in July 1954. Since • Respondents claim they are absolute & exclusive owners. Petitioners have
then, H w/o justifiable cause or reason deliberately abandoned and neglected her no cause of action. They asked for moral damages & for agreed monthly rental
despite repeated demands. Moreover, he has failed and refused to provide for her & rental in arrears. (Petitioners were actually occupying some of lands in
maintenance and support. She is alleged to be pregnant, sickly and w/o any source dispute).
of revenue while H is now employed in a US hospital earning USD200/mo on the • CFI: case dismissed for failure of petitioners to prove claim on 2 parcels of
average. He is also a part-owner of lands in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, assessed at land. Decision in favor of respondents & against petitioners. Respondents’
around PhP32k in 1955. counterclaim likewise dismissed. Became final & executory.
• Dec. 1969: respondents filed in CFI Cebu action for recovery of possession
Cecilio moves for the dismissal of W’s complaint putting in issue the validity of the & ownership of one of the parcels of land litigated in first case against
marriage and that such complaint contained no allegation that earnest efforts petitioners. Turns out that although judgment in first case awarded properties
toward a compromise have been made before the filing of the suit as per Art 222 CC in question to respondents, the dispositive portion of the decision failed to state
w/c provides: that herein petitioners should vacate premises in favor of respondents. Thus
respondents had to file another case. (Bobops judge).
Art 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family • Petitioners: contested action claiming former decision has been final &
unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, executory.
but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Art 2035. • CFI decision: in favor of Zoila et al. (then plaintiffs) & against Maximo et al.
(defendants). Portion of land in dispute w/c defendants are occupying is
CFI & CA dismissed the case. H now resorts to the Court. awarded to plaintiffs & defendants are ordered to vacate & deliver land to
Cecilio asks for a showing that efforts in question were made for such is a condition plaintiffs.
precedent to the existence of the cause of action. He holds that failure of the Issues & Ratio:
complaint to plead that he previously tried in earnest to reach a settlement out of 1. WON decision in first case denied respondents claim of ownership. - NO
court renders it assailable for lack of cause of action and it may be so attacked at • Clear that private respondents were declared owners of land in ques. CFI
any stage of the case even on appeal. rightfully dismissed petition. Documentary evidence in support of defendants’
testimonial evidence show that respondents are owners. They had documentary
ISSUE: WON compromise between the sps may be made re support and validity of exhibits consisting of tax declarations & official tax receipts which speak better
marriage than the best oral testimony a witness is capable of making.
• Dismissal of counterclaim of respondents cannot affect their rts on 2
HELD: No, the case involves a claim for future support under Art 2035 CC and can parcels of land in ques because it only referred to moral damages, rentals &
not be subject of a valid compromise. It is therefore outside the sphere of attorney’s fees.
application Art 222 upon w/c petitioner relies. • Respondents are the owners & thus they have a rt to possession of land &
rt of action against holder & possessor of such in order to recover land.
In attacking the validity of the marriage, H Cecilio seeks a non-compromisable 2. WON respondents should exert earnest efforts to settle 2nd case
issue. amicably. – NO
Lack of such won’t lead to dismissal of case since it’s merely a consequence of 1 st
Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues, a showing of previous efforts case.
to compromise them would be needless. Decision re dismissal of case affirmed. 3. WON parties are members of same family. - NO
CC Art. 217 provides that only the ff are family relations:
Mendez vs. Eugenia [Oct. 28, 1977] a. bet husband & wife
Petition for review of summary judgment of CFI Cebu b. bet parent & child
c. among other ascendants & their descendants
Petitioners: Zoila & Rafael Mendez and Matilde Bionson d. among bros & sis
Respondents: Maximo, Eugenia, Juana, Fortunata, Prudencia, Roman, Anecita & Parties are collateral relatives who are not bros. & sisters.
Maria Bionson; and Hon. Alfredo Laya, CFI Cebu Br. 12 Held: CFI decision affirmed w/costs against petitioners.

Facts: GUERRERO v. RTC
• Oct. 8, 1968: Zoila & Matilde plus 10 others (I’ll refer to them as 229 SCRA 274 (1994)
petitioners) filed action against present respondents for partition of 2 parcels of
land located in Oslob, Cebu. Plaintiffs prayed that Zoila, Paula Benigna, Pedro, Facts:
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2558/4689982.doc \ 2

 This is a petition for review of the orders of the RTC of Ilocos Norte, made by  NO. The attempt to compromise as well as the inability to succeed is a
respondent judge Bello, Jr. condition precedent to the filing of a suit between members of the same
 Gaudencio Guerrero filed a complaint seeking to recover from his brother-in-law family, the absence of such allegation in the complaint being assailable at
Pedro Hernando a lot in Sarrat Cadastre, Ilocos Norte with damages. any stage of the proceeding, even on appeal, for lack of cause of action.
 At the pre-trial conference, Judge Bello noted that being bros-in-law, it had to  However, the Court stated that the case is not dismissed for failure of
appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a petitioner to comply with the court’s order to amend his complaint, as
compromise had been exerted and that the same failed, as provided in Art. 151 proposed by Hernando.
and Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, ROC.  Since assailed orders do not find support in our jurisprudence but, on the
 Guerrero’s complaint did not allege such, nor did Hernando file any motion to other hand, are based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the
dismiss nor attach the complaint on the grounds of this alleged defect in his law, petitioner could not be bound to comply with them.
answer.
 Respondent judge gave Guerrero 5 days to file his motion and amended Held: Petition granted. Appealed orders set aside. RTC ordered to continue with
complaint with the “jurisdictional defect” being fixed. civil case with deliberate dispatch
 Guerrero moved to reconsider claiming that since brothers by affinity are no
members of the same family, he was not required to exert effort toward a Hontiveros vs. RTC, Br. 25, Iloilo City [June 29, 1999]
compromise. Furthermore, Hernando was precluded from raising this issue since Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
he did not file a motion to dismiss nor assert the same as an affirmative defense
in his answer. Facts:
 Judge Bello denied MFR and warned that the case will be dismissed if the  December 3, 1990 – spouses Agusto and Maria Hontiveros (petitioners),
amendment he sought was not complied with. filed a complaint for damages against Gregorio Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson.
 Guerrero failed to comply and thus the case was dismissed hence this petition  Petitioners alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land, in the town
of Jamindan, Province of Capiz by OCT No. 0-2124, issued pursuant to the
Issues: decision of the Intermediate Appelate Court which modified the decision of the
1. WON bros by affinity are considered members of the same CoFI of Capiz, in a land registration case filed by Gregorio Hontiveros.
family contemplated in Art. 217(4) & Art. 222, New CC, as well as under  Petitioners were denied of income from the land as a result of the filing of
Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, ROC, requiring earnest efforts towards a the land registration case. Rentals lost: 1968-1987 66,000 per year; 595,000
compromise before a suit between them may be instituted and per year after 1987.
maintained  Answer filed by the respondent denied that they were married and it also
alleged the Gregorio Hontiveros was a widower and Ayson was single. They
 NO. Considering that Art. 151, FC starts with the negative
alleged that the possession of the property in question had already been
word “No,” the requirement there is mandatory (Fule v. CA). That
transferred to the petitioners on August 7, 1985 by virtue of a writ of
requirement is further complemented by Sec. 1, par. (j), Rule 16, ROC which
possession dated July 18, 1985. Since then, the petitioners have been
provides as ground for a motion to dismiss “(t)hat the suit is between
receiving rentals from the tenants of the land. The answer also alleged that the
members of the same family and no earnest efforts towards a compromise
complaint failed to state a cause action since it did not allege that earnest
have been made.”
efforts towards a compromise had been made, considering that the Agusto and
 Reason for this requirement: This rule is introduced because
Gregorio are brothers.
it is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation
 Respondent also contends that the petitioner’s claim for damages was
between members of the same family. It is necessary that every effort
barred by prescription with respect to claims before 1984, that there were no
should be made toward a compromise before a litigation is allowed to breed
rentals due since Gregorio was a possessor in good faith and for value; and that
hate and passion in the family. It is known that a lawsuit between close
Ayson had nothing to do with the case as she was not married to Gregorio and
relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers x x x A
did not have any proprietary interest in the subject property.
litigation in a family is to be lamented far more than a lawsuit between
 May 16, 1991 – petitioners filed an amended complaint to insert therein
strangers.
the allegation that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made
 But Art. 151 and the ROC rule cannot be applied precisely
between the parties but the same were unsuccessful.
because the enumeration of “brothers and sisters” as member of the same
 Answer of the respondent: denied the earnest effort that had been made to
family does not comprehend “sisters-in-law” nor “brothers-in-law” as held in
reach a compromise agreement but the parties were unsuccessful.
the case Gayon v. Gayon. Such relationship is not listed under Art. 217 of
 July 19, 1995 – petitioners moved for a judgement on the pleadings on the
the New Civil Code as members of the same family. Art. 150 of the Family
ground that Gregorio’s answer did not tender an issue or that it otherwise
Code repeats essentially the same enumeration of “members of the family.”
admitted the material allegations of the complaint.
 November 23, 1995 – trial court denied petitioners’ motion and dismissed
2. WON absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest
the case on the ground that the complaint was not verified as required by
efforts towards a compromise were exerted which efforts failed, is a
article 51 of the FC.
ground for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2558/4689982.doc \ 3

o Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall 3. No
prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that  Art 151 does not apply because the suit is not exclusively among family
earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same members.
have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the same  Ayson is a stranger to the Hontiveros family.
case must be dismissed.  The phrase “members of the same family” refers to husband and wife,
This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of parents and children, ascendants and descendants, and brothers and sister
compromise under the Civil Code. (222a) whether full or half blood.
Issues:  Guerrero v. RTC – brothers and sisters does not comprehend sisters-in-law
1. WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on the case  Ayson and Maria Hontiveros are considered strangers to the Hontiveros
2. WON after denying petitioners’ motion for judgement on the pleadings, the family for purposes of Article 151.
trial court could dismiss their complaint motu proprio for failure to comply with
Art. 151 of the Family Code.
3. WON Article 151 of the Family Code applies in this case. Siari Valley Estates, Inc. petitioner vs Filemon Lucasan, et al., respondents
August 31, 1960
Ratio
1. Yes CFI of Zamboanga del Norte ordered Filemon Lucasan to deliver to Siari Valley
 Petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Estates, Inc. the cattle inside his pasture or pay its value amounting to 40,000.00
 Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Court of and damages in another sum of 40, 000. This was affirmed by SC and became final
Appeals – Supreme Court is vested with the power to review, revise, reverse, and executory inasmuch as a writ of execution was even issued. In carrying out the
modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as law or the Rules of Court may writ though, the sheriff proceeded to levy on certain parcels of land belonging to
provide, final judgements and orders of lower court in all cases in which only an defendant Filemon. Such lands were sold by the sheriff at a public auction to the
error or question of law is involved. corporation as the highest bidder on Jan 1956. On the same month, the sheriff
 When the appeal would involve purely questions of law or any of the other issued in favor of the SVE the final certificate of sale since Lucasan wasn’t able to
cases specified in Article X of the Constitution, it should be taken to the SC by redeem the land within the one-year period. The final certificate of sale was
petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rules 42 and 45 of the Rules registered duly. SVE failed to take possession of the land despite the writ of
of Court. possession. SVE filed a motion to have the land placed under its possession.

2. No Debtor and respondent Filemon filed an opposition alleging he was in possession of
 Baja vs. Macandong – court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio without one of the parcels of land sold at the auction, on which he had a house erected and
violating the plaintiff’s right to be heard, except in the following instances: which he has extrajudicially constituted as family home as registered on register of
o Plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial deeds on June 21, 1955. Filemon contends that since H&L constituted his family
o Fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time home, it was beyond reach of judicial execution.
o He fails to comply with rules or any order of the court
o Court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Upon a second motion for reconsideration, the court rendered an order allowing SVE
the suit. to take possession of all lands sold, with the exception of parcel 1 on which
 None of these exceptions appears in this case Filemon’s family home was because the levy and sale made by the sheriff with
 The trial court found that judgement on the pleadings in inappropriate not regard to parcel 1 are null and void for not being effected in accordance with
only for the fact that respondent in their answer specifically denied the claim of Section 14, Rule 39 in relation to Sec7 Rule 59, ROC.
damages against them, but also because of the rule that the party claiming
damages must satisfactorily prove the amount thereof – TRIAL MUST BE HELD WON notice of levy upon land of Filemon was valid
 It is improper for the judge to render judgement based on the pleadings
alone. Factual issues have to be resolved: No. Parcel 1 is a registered land and is real property. As such, it shall be levied on in
o Ayson’s participation and/or liability if any like manner and with life effect as under an order of attachment (Sec14Rule39).
Hence, in order for a notice of levy upon it to be valid, reference to the number
o Nature, extent and duration of Gregorio’s possession of the
of its certificate of title, volume and page in the registry book where the
subject property
title is registered (which was nonexistent, in this case) must be attached to the
 Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not
description of the property itself. Such are to be filed with register of deeds together
verified for which reason the trial court could not believe the veracity of the
with order of levying. (Sec7Rule59). This is to ensure that the debtor as well as a 3rd
allegation.
person may be informed of the particular land or property under the custody of the
 Absence of verification required by Art. 151 does not affect the jurisdiction court.
of the court. Verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an
assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct. The court could WON the family home extrajudicially established by Filemon on lot and house in
have ordered the petitioners to verify them.
question exempts from execution
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2558/4689982.doc \ 4

• Lazaro Ba-a owned a land w/c he sold to Pablo Taneo, dad of petitioners on
Yes. The reason why a familyt home constituted after a debt has been incurred is Sept 18, 41 by virtue of an Escritura de Venta.
not exempt from execution is to protect the creditor against a debtor who may act • July 19, 1951: Gilig & wife filed case for recovery of prop against Pablo.
in bad faith by resorting to such declaration to defeat claims against him. Money • March 7, 1964: Pablo constituted house in ques erected on land of Plutarco
judgment in question comes within the purview of the word debt in Article 243 (2) Vacalares as family home but notarized only on May 2, 1965 & registered
of NCC (“Family home extrajudicially executed shall be exempt from execution w/Register of Deeds on June 24, 1966.
except for debts incurred before the declaration was recorded in registry of • June 24, 1964: Judgment in favor of Gilig, ordering Pablo to pay Gilig P5k
property”) for damages.
• Nov. 22, 1965: writ of execution issued against Pablo’s properties.
Modequillo v. Breva • Dec.1, 1965: Notice of Levy executed wherein properties in dispute were
Petition to review the decision of CA. 1990. among those levied. One land was about 5 hec while the other was a family
home. Both are located at Igpit, Opol, Misamis Oriental.
FACTS: • Feb. 12, 1966: lands were sold in pub bidding where Gilig was highest
In Jan 1988, CA held that Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay jointly and severally bidder.
are liable to the Salinas and Culan-Culan sps by way of compensating for the death • March 2, 1966: Certificate of Sale registered w/ Register of Deeds.
and damages to the victims. • April 20, 1966: Rufino Arriola filed case vs Gilig for recovery of prop and/or
annulment of sale w/damages. RTC & CA dismissed case declaring alleged sale
Consequently, in July 1988, the sheriff levied on a 600 sq meter parcel of residential executed by Gilig in favor of Arriola as null & void for being fictitious & executed
land located in Davao del Sur registered in the name of Jose Modequillo and a 3 in fraud of creditors.
hectare parcel of agri’l land also in the name of Modequillo. • Feb. 9, 1968: petitioners failed to redeem land so final deed of conveyance
was executed, definitely selling, transferring & conveying prop to Gilig.
A motion to quash/set aside the levy of execution was filed by Modequillo alleging • Oct. 13, 1973: Pablo’s application for free patent on land in ques was
that the 1st parcel of land is where the family home is built since 1969 and such is approved. Such was unknown to Gilig. Patent & title were issued on Dec. 10,
exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Art 153 & 153 FC. As to 1980.
the agri’l land, it is alleged to be still part of the public land. • Nov. 5, 1985: petitioners filed action to declare deed of conveyance void &
quiet title over land w/ prayer for writ of prelim injunction. They alleged that:
1. They were children & heirs of Pablo Taneo & Narcisa Valaceras who died on
ISSUE: WON the Modequillo’s family home is exempt from execution Feb. 12, 77 & Sept 12, 84 respectively.
2. Prop acquired thru free patent & as such, it’s inalienable & not subj to
HELD: No, for the debt or liability was incurred at the time of the vehicular accident encumbrance for payment of debt pursuant to CA No. 141.
on March 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising therefrom was rendered by the 3. They continuously, openly & peacefully possessed lands until Feb. 9, 68
appellate court on Jan 29, 1988. Both preceded the effectivity of the FC on Aug 3, when Sheriff Yasay issued deed of conveyance in favor of Gilig, including
1988. This case does not fall under the exemptions from execution under FC. As to their family home w/c was extrajudicially constituted in accordance w/law.
the agri’l land, the sheriff shall levy on whatever rights the petitioner may have on 4. Gilig was able to obtain tax declaration & such cast doubt over their title &
the land. ownership.
Petition dismissed. • Respondents contentions:
1. he lawfully acquired properties thru sheriff’s sale on Feb. 12, ’66.
NOTES: Under FC, a family home is deemed constituted on a H&L from the time it 2. sale became final as no redemption was made w/in 1 yr fr registration of
is occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially certificate of sale.
or extrajudicially as required in the CC. If the family actually resides in the 3. CA confirmed validity of sale in case, Arriola v. Gilig.
premises, it is, therefore, a family home as contemplated by law. Thus the 4. Lazaro Ba-a, original owner of land, sold land to Pablo Taneo on Sept. 18,
creditors should take the necessary precautions to protect their interest before 41 proven by an Escritura de Venta. Even if it was a priv land, Taneo filed
extending credit to the sps or head of the family who owns the home. an application for free patent w/c became final only in 1979.
5. He presented counterclaim that petitioners still possessed land & thus he
Taneo, Jr. vs. CA [March 9, 1999] has been deprived of acts of ownership & possession & prayed for payment
Petition for review on certiorari of a CA decision of rentals.
• RTC: dismissed. Declared null & void OCT & Free Patent under
Petitioners: Pablito Taneo, Jr., Jose Taneo, Nena Catubig & husband, Cilia Moring & Pablo Taneo’s name & directed Register of Deeds to cancel such. Likewise
husband declare Gilig as absolute & legal owner of land & house in ques & is entitled to
Respondents: Court of Appeals & Abdon Gilig possess same & ordering petitioners vacate house & to refrain from disturbing
Gilig’s peaceful possession. Ordered petitioners to pay reasonable rental.
Facts: • CA affirmed in toto.
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2558/4689982.doc \ 5

• Petitioners invoke Sec. 118, CA No. 141, claiming that land under • But SC ruled in Manacop vs. CA: doesn’t mean that Art. 153 has
free patent, such as land in dispute, can’t be alienated or encumbered. Cited retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to have
Oliveros vs. Porciongcola and Gonzaga vs. CA. Ratio of law: give homesteader been constituted as family home at time of their occupation prior to effectivity
or patentee every chance to preserve for himself & his family land w/c State of FC & are exempt from execution for payment of oblig incurred pre-FC
had gratuitously given to him as reward for his labor in cleaning & cultivating it. effectivity. Proper interpretation would be that all existing family residences at
the time of FC effectivity are considered family homes & are PROSPECTIVELY
Issues & Ratio: entitled to benefits accorded to family home under FC. Thus, for debts incurred
1. WON land in dispute can’t be encumbered pursuant to Sec. 118 of CA No. pre-FC effectivity, prop is not exempt fr attachment.
141-NO • Applicable law would be CC w/c required registration. CC provides for some
• Intent of the law is clear as SC has ruled in Republic vs. CA: Homestead instances when family home’s NOT EXEMPTED fr execution, forced
laws were designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of State to land- sale/attachment & among these is for debts incurred before the declaration was
destitute citizens for their home & cultivation. State prohibits sale/encumbrance recorded in the Registry of Prop. Since money judgment/debt was
w/in 5yrs after grant of patent. Alienation is impliedly permitted after that 5-yr rendered/incurred on JAN. 24, 1964 before the house was erected on MAR. 7,
period. But such is subj to rt of repurchase by homesteader, his widow/heirs 1964 and instrument constituting it as family home was registered on JAN. 24,
w/in 5yrs. It aims to preserve & keep in family of homesteader that portion of 1966, the family home is not exempted fr execution or forced sale.
pub land State had gratuitously given to him. Rt to repurchase exists even if • Besides, constitution was violative of law since it was erected not on the
conveyance is made by his widow/heirs. land of Pablo but on land of Plutarco Vacalares. House should be constructed on
• But the prohibition in the provision does not apply to petitioners w/c a land NOT belonging to another. Shows that constitution was just an
provides that alienation/encumbrance of lands acquired under free patent or afterthought to escape execution of prop but to no avail.
homestead provisions will not be allowed from date of approval of application & Held: Petition denied for lack of merit.
for a term 5 yrs fr & after date of issuance of patent/grant except in favor of
gov’t or any of its branches, units or institutions or legally constituted banking
corporations nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of debts contracted
prior to expiration period but improvements/crops on land may be
mortgaged/pledged to qualified persons, assoc, corp. Meaning, prohibition on
alienation begins on date of approval of application and it will end 5 yrs after
the issuance of the patent (affirmed in Amper v. Presiding Judge).
• Thus, conveyance thru sheriff’s sale was not violative of law because the
judgment obligation of petitioners against Gilig arose on JUNE 24, 1964,
properties were levied & sold on FEB. 12, 1966 and final deed of conveyance
was executed on FEB. 9, 1968. But the application for free patent was approved
only on OCT. 19, 1973. Meaning, prohibition on alienation only began on OCT.
19, 1973 and lasted until Dec. 10, 1985 or 5 yrs after free patent was issued on
Dec. 10, 80, all of these took place after property was sold. In fact, when
application was approved, Pablo was no longer the lawful owner & he no longer
had rts over the prop that he could transfer to petitioners. Debts contracted
prior to the application are not covered by the prohibition.
2. WON the family home was constituted by Pablo & thus exempt fr
execution-NO
• Family home: dwelling place of a person & his family. It’s a real rt w/c is
gratuitous, inalienable & free fr attachment, constituted over dwelling place &
land on w/c it’s situated. It confers upon family the rt to enjoy prop w/c must
remain w/person constituting it & his heirs. It can’t be seized by creditors
except in special cases.
• CC Art. 224-251: Family home may be constituted judicially (by filing
petition & w/ court approval) or extrajudicially (recording of pub instrument in
proper registry of prop declaring establishment of family home).
• FC Art. 153: Registration no longer needed. Family home’s deemed
constituted on house & lot fr time it’s occupied in the family residence &
continues as long as beneficiaries actually reside therein. It’s exempt fr
execution, forced sale/attachment, except as provided & to extent of value
allowed by law.
• Petitioners claim that dad constituted home as early as 1964.