Josef v. Santos, G.R. No.

165060
November 27, 2008, Ynares-Santiago, J.
DOCTRINE: The family home is the dwelling place of a person and his family, a sacred symbol of family love and
repository of cherished memories that last during ones lifetime. It is the sanctuary of that union which the law
declares and protects as a sacred institution; and likewise a shelter for the fruits of that union. It is where both can
seek refuge and strengthen the tie that binds them together and which ultimately forms the moral fabric of our
nation. (Nature and Characteristics)
FACTS:
Petitioner Albino Josef was the defendant in the civil case for collection of sum of money filed by herein
respondent Otelio Santos, who claimed that petitioner failed to pay the shoe materials which he bought on
credit from respondent on various dates in 1994.
RTC found petitioner to be liable to respondent in the amount of P404,836.50 with interest at 12% per annum
reckoned from January 9, 1995 until full payment.
Petitioner appealed before the CA which affirmed the trial courts decision in toto.
A writ of execution was issued which includes a real property located at Marikina City.
Petitioner filed an original petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the sheriffs levy and
sale of the abovementioned personal and real properties. Petitioner claimed that the personal properties did
not belong to him but to his children; and that the real property was his family home thus exempt from
execution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the levy and sale of the personal belongings of the petitioners children as well as the
attachment and sale on public auction of his family home to satisfy the judgment award in favor of respondent is
legal.
RULING: No, the levy and sale of the real property is illegal under civil laws. The family home is a real right which
is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is
situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with the
person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases. Moreover, the
State has a constitutional and moral duty to preserve and protect, as well as petitioners constitutional right to
abode, all procedural infirmities occasioned upon this case must take a back seat to the substantive questions which
deserve to be answered in full.
The writ of execution is hereby void.

Arriola v. Arriola, G.R. No. 177703

January 28, 2008, Austria-Martinez, J.
DOCTRINE: 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 from execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter
provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law.
FACTS:
Fidel Arriola died and is survived by his legal heirs, John NaborArriola, respondent which was his son with his
first wife, and Vilma G. Arriola, his second wife and his other son, Anthony Ronald Arriola, petitioner.
RTC rendered a decision ordering the partition of the parcel of land among his heirs in equal shares of 1/3
each, without prejudice to the rights of creditors or mortgages.
However, the parties failed to agree on how to divide the abovementioned property and so the respondent
proposed to sell it through public auction. The petitioners initially agreed but refused to include in the auction
the house standing on the subject land.
Despite complaints raised, the sheriff is ordered to proceed with the public auction sale of the subject lot
including the house constructed thereon.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same in its Resolution. Hence, the present
petition.
ISSUE: Whether the subject house should be sold at public auction as ordered by the RTC.
RULING: No, Article 153 of the Family Code expressly provides that, family home is deemed constituted on a
house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. Thus, applying these concepts, the subject house
as well as the specific portion of the subject land on which it stands are deemed constituted as a family home by the
deceased and petitioner Vilma from the moment they began occupying the same as a family residence. Therefore,
the subject house is exempted from partition by public auction within the period provided in this code.

Manacop v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97898

August 11, 1997, Panganiban, J.
DOCTRINE: 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 from execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter
provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law.
FACTS:
Petitioner Florante Manacop and his wife Eulaceli purchased a 446-square-meter residential lot with a
bungalow, in consideration of P75,000.00 located in Commonwealth Village, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon
City.
The petitioner failed to pay the sub-contract cost pursuant to a deed of assignment signed between
petitioners corporation and private respondent, F.F. Manacop Construction Co., Inc.
Private respondent filed a complaint for the recovery for the sum of money with a prayer for preliminary
attachment against the former.
However, Manacop insists that the attached property is a family home having been occupied by him and his
family since 1972 and is therefore exempt from attachment.
ISSUE: Whether or not a final and executory decision promulgated and a writ of execution issued before the
effectivity of the Family Code can be executed on a family home constituted under the provisions of the said Code.
RULING: Yes, the writ of execution shall apply. The residential house and lot of petitioner became a family home by
operation of law under Article 153 of the Family Code. Such provision does not mean that said article has a
retroactive effect such that all existing family residences, petitioners included, are deemed to have been constituted
as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and henceforth, are
exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code on August
3, 1988. Since petitioner incurred debt in 1987, it preceded the effectivity of the Code and his property is therefore
not exempt form attachment.

Patricio v. Dario III, G.R. No. 170829

November 20, 2006, Ynares-Santiago, J.
DOCTRINE: Art. 159. The family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried
head of the family for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs cannot
partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of whoever
owns the property or constituted the family home.
FACTS:
Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G. Patricio and their two sons,
Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Among the properties he left was a
parcel of land with a residential house and a pre-school building built thereon situated at 91 Oxford corner
Ermin Garcia Streets in Cubao, Quezon City
Thereafter, petitioner and Marcelino Marc formally advised Dario III of their intention to partition the subject
property and terminate the co-ownership. Private respondent refused to partition the property hence
petitioner and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition before the RTC, QC.
The trial court also ordered the sale of the property by public auction wherein all parties concerned may put
up their bids. In case of failure, the subject property should be distributed accordingly in the aforestated
manner.
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court
partially reconsidered the decision.
ISSUE: Whether the partition of the family home is proper despite Dario IIIs refusal on the ground that a minor
beneficiary still resides in the said home.
RULING: No, it is not proper. As a general rule, the family home may be preserved for a minimum of 10 years
following the death of the spouses or the unmarried family head who constituted the family home, or of the spouse
who consented to the constitution of his or her separate property as family home. After 10 years and a minor
beneficiary still lives therein, the family home shall be preserved only until that minor beneficiary reaches the age of
majority. After these periods lapse, the property may be partitioned by the heirs.