NISCE Exemptions, FC 155, 157, 160; Rights of Creditors

De Mesa v. Acero

January 16, 2012 G.R. No. 185064 REYES, J.

DOCTRINE

It is incumbent upon the debtor to invoke and prove to the Sheriff that the subject property is his family home within
the prescribed period and before the sale of the property, otherwise laches will set in.

FACTS

Spouses Araceli and Ernesto De Mesa (petitioners) purchased a parcel of land on April 17, 1984 before they were
married. A house was later constructed on the land which they occupied as their family home when they got married
sometime in January 1987.

In September 1988, Araceli obtained a loan of P100,000.00 from Claudio Acero (respondent) and mortgaged the
property as security. Araceli was not able to pay the debt and was charged with violation of BP 22, which the RTC
dismissed. RTC instead ordered Araceli to pay the loan with interest incurred.

In March 1993, a writ of execution was issued and Sheriff Samonte levied upon the property. A year after, the
property was sold in an auction to which Claudio Acero was the highest bidder. Thus, a certificate of sale was
granted to him.

In February 1995, Claudio leased the property to the petitioners but they were unable to pay the monthly rent which
amounted to P 170,500.00 in total by 1998.

Claudio and his wife filed a case before the MTC for the ejection of the Spouses De Mesa. The De Mesa’s defense
is that the Spouses Acero have no right over the property. It is the Spouses De Mesa who are the lawful owners of
the property.

The MTC and RTC denied the petition of Spouses De Mesa when they claimed that the property was a family
home, which is exempt from execution under the Family Code. Accordingly, the CA affirmed the decision of the
lower courts, and ruled that the exemption is not automatic and should be raised to the Sheriff prior to the execution.

ISSUES

Whether or not the family home of Spouses De Mesa is exempted from execution.

RULING
No, while the subject property became a family home by operation of law when the Family Code took effect, it must
be proven to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to do so estopped the Spouses De
Mesa from claiming the exemption.

Although the family home is exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment with the exceptions stated in Article
155 of the Family Code, the subject property must be proved as such before the prescribed period. In this case, one
(1) year has lapsed before Spouses De Mesa actually claimed that the property is a family home from the time the
property was sold and a Final Deed of Sale was issued to Claudio.

Moreover, Araceli’s Torrens title was cancelled and a new one was issued under Claudio’s name, yet the petitioners
remained silent. In fact, it was only after the respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, or approximately
four (4) years from the time of the auction sale, did the petitioners claim that the subject property is a family home,
thus, exempt from execution.

The Spouses De Mesa’s negligence to assert their right within a reasonable amount of time gives rise to the
assumption that they have abandoned and waived it. It appears that it is a mere afterthought and artifice that cannot
be countenanced without doing the Spouses Acero injustice and depriving the fruits of the judgment award in their
favor. The petition was thus dismissed.