SPOUSES ARACELI OLIVA-DE MESA and ERNESTO S. DE MESA, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CLAUDIO D.

ACERO,
JR. and MA. RUFINA D. ACERO, SHERIFF FELIXBERTO L. SAMONTE and REGISTRAR ALFREDO SANTOS,
Respondents. G.R. No. 185064 January 16, 2012

Facts:

Araceli De Mesa is married to Ernesto De Mesa.They purcahsed a parcel of land located in

Meycauayan, Bulacan. A house was contracted in the said property, which became their family home. A year
after, Arceli contracted a loan in the amount of P100,000 from Claudio Acero, which was secured by a
mortgage on the said parcel of land and house. Araceli issued a check for the payment of the loan. When
Acero presented the check to the bank it was dishonored because the checking account was already closed.
Acero demanded payment. However, Spouses De Mesa still failed to pay. Acero filed a complaint for violation
of B.P. 22 in the RTC. The RTC acquitted the Spouses but ordered them to pay Acero P100,000 plus legal
interest. A writ of execution was issued to levy on the said property.

The house and lot was sold in the public auction and Acero was the highest bidder. Acero leased the property
to Juanito Oliva, who defaulted payment for several years. Oliva contends that the Acero spouses are not the
owners of the property.

The MTC rendered a Decision, giving due course to Spouses Acero’s complaint and ordering the Spouses De
Mesa and Oliva to vacate the subject property. Spouses De Mesa contend that they are the rightful owners of
the property. The MTC also stated that from the time a Torrens title over the subject property was issued in
Claudio’s name up to the time the complaint for ejectment was filed, the petitioners never assailed the
validity of the levy made by the Sheriff, the regularity of the public sale that was conducted thereafter and
the legitimacy of Acero’s Torrens title that was resultantly issued.

Spouses De Mesa filed an action to nullify the TCT issued to Acero. Spouses De Mesa contend that the subject
property is a family home, which is exempt from execution under the Family Code and, thus, could not have
been validly levied upon for purposes of satisfying the writ of execution. RTC dismissed the complaint. CA
affirmed RTC’s decision.

Issue:

Whether the subject property, as a family home, may be subject to execution in this case.

Ruling:

Yes, the subject property is family home but is subject to execution. In general, the family home is
exempt from execution. However, the person claiming this privilege must assert it at the time it was levied or
within a reasonable time thereafter. For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be
made as to what law applies based on when it was constituted and what requirements must be complied
with by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such privilege. Hence, two sets of rules are applicable.