8/24/2015

G.R.No.86355

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.86355May31,1990
JOSEMODEQUILLO,petitioner,
vs.
HON.AUGUSTOV.BREVAFRANCISCOSALINAS,FLORIPERABELLANSALINAS,JUANITOCULAN
CULANandDEPUTYSHERIFFFERNANDOPLATArespondents.
JosefinaBrandaresAlmazanforpetitioner.
ABCLawOfficesforprivaterespondents.

GANCAYCO,J.:
The issue in this petition is whether or not a final judgment of the Court of Appeals in an action for
damagesmaybesatisfiedbywayofexecutionofafamilyhomeconstitutedundertheFamilyCode.
Thefactsareundisputed.
On January 29, 1988, a judgment was rendered by the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 09218
entitled"FranciscoSalinas,etal.vs.JoseModequillo,etal.,"thedispositivepartofwhichreadasfollows:
WHEREFORE,thedecisionunderappealshouldbe,asitishereby,reversedandsetaside.
Judgment is hereby rendered finding the defendantsappellees Jose Modequillo and Benito
Malubay jointly and severally liable to plaintiffsappellants as hereinbelow set forth.
Accordingly,defendantsappelleesareorderedtopayjointlyandseverallyto:
1.Plaintiffsappellants,theSalinasspouses:
a.theamountofP30,000.00bywayofcompensationforthedeathoftheirsonAudieSalinas
b.P10,000.00forthelossofearningsbyreasonofthedeathofsaidAudieSalinas
c.thesumofP5,000.00asburialexpensesofAudieSalinasand
d.thesumofP5,000.00bywayofmoraldamages.
2.PlaintiffsappellantsCulanCulan:
a.thesumofP5,000.00forhospitalizationexpensesofRenatoCulanCulanand
b.P5,000.00formoraldamages.
3. Both plaintiffappellants Salinas and CulanCulan, P7,000.00 for attorney's fees and
litigationexpenses.
Allcounterclaimsandotherclaimsareherebydismissed.1
Thesaidjudgmenthavingbecomefinalandexecutory,awritofexecutionwasissuedbytheRegionalTrial
Court of Davao City to satisfy the said judgment on the goods and chattels of the defendants Jose
ModequilloandBenitoMalubayatMalalag,DavaodelSur.
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20align%3D%22center%22%20style%3D%22fontsize%3A%2014px%3B%20textdecoration%3A%20none%3B%20color

1/3

8/24/2015

G.R.No.86355

OnJuly7,1988,thesheriffleviedonaparcelofresidentiallandlocatedatPoblacionMalalag,Davaodel
Sur containing an area of 600 square meters with a market value of P34,550.00 and assessed value of
P7,570.00perTaxDeclarationNo.8700801359,registeredinthenameofJoseModequillointheofficeof
theProvincialAssessorofDavaodelSurandaparcelofagriculturallandlocatedatDalagbongBulacan,
Malalag,DavaodelSurcontaininganareaof3hectareswithamarketvalueofP24,130.00andassessed
valueofP9,650.00perTaxDeclarationNo.870801848registeredinthenameofJoseModequillointhe
officeoftheProvincialAssessorofDavaodelSur.2
A motion to quash and/or to set aside levy of execution was filed by defendant Jose Modequillo alleging
thereinthattheresidentiallandlocatedatPoblacionMalalagiswherethefamilyhomeisbuiltsince1969
priortothecommencementofthiscaseandassuchisexemptfromexecution,forcedsaleorattachment
underArticles152and153oftheFamilyCodeexceptforliabilitiesmentionedinArticle155thereof,and
that the judgment debt sought to be enforced against the family home of defendant is not one of those
enumeratedunderArticle155oftheFamilyCode.Astotheagriculturallandalthoughitisdeclaredinthe
nameofdefendantitisallegedtobestillpartofthepubliclandandthetransferinhisfavorbytheoriginal
possessor and applicant who was a member of a cultural minority was not approved by the proper
governmentagency.Anoppositiontheretowasfiledbytheplaintiffs.
InanorderdatedAugust26,1988,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion.Amotionforreconsiderationthereof
wasfiledbydefendantandthiswasdeniedforlackofmeritonSeptember2,1988.
Hence,thehereinpetitionforreviewoncertiorariwhereinitisallegedthatthetrialcourterredandactedin
excessofitsjurisdictionindenyingpetitioner'smotiontoquashand/ortosetasidelevyontheproperties
and in denying petitioner' motion for reconsideration of the order dated August 26, 1988. Petitioner
contendsthatonlyaquestionoflawisinvolvedinthispetition.Heassertsthattheresidentialhouseandlot
was first occupied as his family residence in 1969 and was duly constituted as a family home under the
FamilyCodewhichtookeffectonAugust4,1988.Thus,petitionerarguesthatthesaidresidentialhouse
andlotisexemptfrompaymentoftheobligationenumeratedinArticle155oftheFamilyCodeandthat
thedecisioninthiscasepertainingtodamagesarisingfromavehicularaccidenttookplaceonMarch16,
1976andwhichbecamefinalin1988isnotoneofthoseinstancesenumeratedunderArticle155ofthe
FamilyCodewhenthefamilyhomemaybelevieduponandsoldonexecution.Itisfurtherallegedthatthe
trialcourterredinholdingthatthesaidhouseandlotbecameafamilyhomeonlyonAugust4,1988when
theFamilyCodebecameeffective,andthattheFamilyCodecannotbeinterpretedinsuchawaythatall
family residences are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their occupancy
prior to the effectivity of the said Code and that they are exempt from execution for the payment of
obligationsincurredbeforetheeffectivityofsaidCodeandthatitalsoerredwhenitdeclaredthatArticle
162oftheFamilyCodedoesnotstatethattheprovisionsofChapter2,TitleVhavearetroactiveeffect.
Articles152and153oftheFamilyCodeprovideasfollows:
Art.152.Thefamilyhome,constitutedjointlybythehusbandandthewifeorbyanunmarried
head of a family, is the dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on
whichitissituated.
Art. 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
fromexecution,forcedsaleorattachmentexceptashereinafterprovidedandtotheextentof
thevalueallowedbylaw.
Under the Family Code, a family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is
occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as
requiredintheCivilCode.Ifthefamilyactuallyresidesinthepremises,itis,therefore,afamilyhomeas
contemplated by law. Thus, the creditors should take the necessary precautions to protect their interest
beforeextendingcredittothespousesorheadofthefamilywhoownsthehome.
Article155oftheFamilyCodealsoprovidesasfollows:
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20align%3D%22center%22%20style%3D%22fontsize%3A%2014px%3B%20textdecoration%3A%20none%3B%20color

2/3

8/24/2015

G.R.No.86355

Art.155.Thefamilyhomeshallbeexemptfromexecution,forcedsaleorattachmentexcept:
(1)Fornonpaymentoftaxes
(2)Fordebtsincurredpriortotheconstitutionofthefamilyhome
(3)Fordebtssecuredbymortgagesonthepremisesbeforeoraftersuchconstitutionand
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, material men and others who
haverenderedserviceorfurnishedmaterialfortheconstructionofthebuilding.
Theexemptionprovidedasaforestatediseffectivefromthetimeoftheconstitutionofthefamilyhomeas
such,andlastssolongasanyofitsbeneficiariesactuallyresidestherein.
In the present case, the residential house and lot of petitioner was not constituted as a family home
whetherjudiciallyorextrajudiciallyundertheCivilCode.Itbecameafamilyhomebyoperationoflawonly
underArticle153oftheFamilyCode.Itisdeemedconstitutedasafamilyhomeupontheeffectivityofthe
Family Code on August 3, 1988 not August 4, one year after its publication in the Manila Chronicle on
August4,1987(1988beingaleapyear).
Thecontentionofpetitionerthatitshouldbeconsideredafamilyhomefromthetimeitwasoccupiedby
petitionerandhisfamilyin1969isnotwelltaken.UnderArticle162oftheFamilyCode,itisprovidedthat
"the provisions of this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are
applicable."ItdoesnotmeanthatArticles152and153ofsaidCodehavearetroactiveeffectsuchthatall
existing family residences are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their
occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and are exempt from execution for the payment of
obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code. Article 162 simply means that all existing
family residences at the time of the effectivity of the Family Code, are considered family homes and are
prospectivelyentitledtothebenefitsaccordedtoafamilyhomeundertheFamilyCode.Article162does
notstatethattheprovisionsofChapter2,TitleVhavearetroactiveeffect.
IsthefamilyhomeofpetitionerexemptfromexecutionofthemoneyjudgmentaforecitedNo.Thedebtor
liabilitywhichwasthebasisofthejudgmentaroseorwasincurredatthetimeofthevehicularaccidenton
March 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising therefrom was rendered by the appellate court on
January29,1988.BothprecededtheeffectivityoftheFamilyCodeonAugust3,1988.Thiscasedoesnot
fallundertheexemptionsfromexecutionprovidedintheFamilyCode.
Astotheagriculturallandsubjectoftheexecution,thetrialcourtcorrectlyruledthatthelevytobemadeby
thesheriffshallbeonwhateverrightsthepetitionermayhaveontheland.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa(Chairman),CruzandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.GrioAquino,J.,isonleave.

Footnotes
1MadameJusticeLornaS.LombosdelaFuentewastheponenteconcurredinbyJustices
AntonioM.MartinezandCecilioL.Pe.
2Pages1821,Rollo.

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20align%3D%22center%22%20style%3D%22fontsize%3A%2014px%3B%20textdecoration%3A%20none%3B%20color

3/3