Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations Spouses Araceli Oliva-De Mesa & Ernesto S.
Spouses Araceli Oliva-De Mesa & Ernesto S. De Mesa v Spouses Claudio D. Acero Jr. & Ma.
Topic: Family Code of the Philippines: The Family Home
Relevant Article/s: Article 152 of the Family Code
The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a
family, is the dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated.
(223a)
Article 153 of the Family Code
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, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or
attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law. (223a)
Article 155 of the Family Code
The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment except:
(1) For nonpayment of taxes
(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, material men, and others who have
rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building. (243a)
Article 162 of the Family Code
The provisions in this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said
provisions are applicable. (n)
Rufina D. Acero et al.
G.R. No. 185064, January 16, 2012
Ponente: Justice Reyes
Facts:
 On April 17, 1984 petitioner spouses Araceli and Ernesto De Mesa jointly purchased
a parcel of land situated at No. 3 Forbes Street, Mount Carmel Homes Subdivision,
Iba, Meycauyan Bulacan while they were still merely cohabiting before their marriage.
A house was constructed in the said property which the petitioners then occupied as
their family home after they got married sometime in January 1987.
 In September 1988, Aracelli obtained a loan from Claudio D. Acero, Jr. in the amount
of 100,000 pesos which was secured by a mortgage over the subject property. As
payment, Araceli issued a check drawn against China Banking Corporation payable
to Claudio. The said check was dishonored when it was presented for payment as the
account from which it was drawn had already been closed. The petitioners failed to
heed Claudio’s subsequent demand for payment.
 On April 26, 1990 respondent Claudio Acero filed a complaint for violation of (B.P. 22)
against the petitioners.
 On October 21, 1992, the RTC acquitted the petitioners but ordered them to pay
Claudio the amount of P100,000 from the date of demand until fully paid.
 On March 15, 1993, a writ of execution was issued, and Sheriff Felixberto Samonte
levied upon the subject property.
 On March 9, 1994, the said property was sold at a public auction. Claudio D. Acero
Jr., being the highest bidder, acquired the ownership of a parcel of land formerly
owned by petitioners Araceli Oliva-De Mesa and Ernesto S. De Mesa (Spouses De
Mesa).
 Thereafter, respondents Acero and his wife Rufina (Spouses Acero) leased the
subject property to its former owners who then defaulted in the payment of the rent.
Unable to collect the rentals due, Spouses Acero filed a complaint for ejectment with
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Spouses De Mesa. The MTC ruled in
Spouses Acero’s favor.
  In their defense, Spouses De Mesa filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), seeking to nullify TCT No. T-221755 (M) on the basis that the subject property
is a family home which is exempt from execution under the Family Code, and thus,
could have not been validly levied upon for purposes of satisfying their unpaid loan.
 The RTC dismissed their complaint.
 The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s Decision.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the subject family home is exempted from execution
Ruling/s:
 NO
 Family Home is defined under Article 152 of the FC as the dwelling house where the
husband and the wife, or by an unmarried head of a family, and their family reside,
and the land on which it is situated. Pursuant to Article 153, 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, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from
execution, forced sale, or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent
of the value allowed by law.
 In this case, the Court cited Ramos v Pangilinan (G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010)
wherein it ruled that for a family home to be exempt from execution, a 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. The Court also stressed the foregoing rules on the
constitution of family homes, for purposes of exemption from execution, in Kelley, Jr.
v. Planters Products, Inc. (G.R. No. 172263, July 9, 2008). The rules could be
summarized as follows:
 First, family residences constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code
or before August 3, 1988, must be constituted as a family home either
judicially or extrajudicially in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code
in order to be exempt from execution
 Second, family residences constructed after the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 3, 1988, are automatically deemed to be family homes, and
thus exempt from execution from the time it was constituted and lasts as
long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein
 Third, family residences which were not judicially or extrajudicially
constituted as a family home prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, but
were existing thereafter, are considered as family homes by operation of law
and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home
under the Family Code.
Here, the subject property became a family residence sometime in January 1987
when Spouses De Mesa got married. There was no showing, however, that the same
was judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code. Still, when the Family Code took effect on August 3,
1988, the subject property became a family home by operation of law and was thus
prospectively exempt from execution. The petitioners were thus correct in asserting
that the subject property was a family home.
Despite the fact that the subject property is a family home and, thus, should have
been exempt from execution, Spouses De Mesa should have asserted the subject
property being a family home and being exempted from execution at the time it was
levied or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Court cited Honrado v. Court of
Appeals (512 Phil 657, 2005) where it was categorically stated that at no other time
can the status of a residential house as a family home can be set up and proved and
its exemption from execution be claimed but before the sale thereof at public auction.
While it is true that the family home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it
is occupied as a family residence and is exempt from execution or forced sale under
Article 153 of the Family Code, such claim for exemption should be set up and proved
to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to do so would
estop the party from later claiming the exemption.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Reyes, ruled that the subject family home is not
exempted from execution. The petition is denied.