Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

243 JOSEF VS.

SANTOS  The family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and free
G.R. No. 165060 | Ynares-Santiago | November 27, 2008 | Exempt Properties from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on
which it is situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to
SUMMARY: The trial court found petitioner Josef liable to respondent Santos in the enjoy such properties, which must remain with the person constituting
amount of P400k. Respondent moved for issuance of a writ of execution. The trial it and his heirs.
court granted the motion and issued a writ of execution. A real property in Marikina  It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases.
was sold by way of public auction to fully satisfy the judgment credit. Petitioner
questioned the sheriff’s levy and sale of the real property, claiming that it was his PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED:
family home and thus exempt from execution. The Court held that the trial court’s 1. Determine if petitioner’s obligation to respondent falls under either of the exceptions
Order and writs of execution were void for not conducting an inquiry into the nature under Article 155 of the Family Code;
of the properties of the petitioner to know whether or not it is indeed his family home. 2. Make an inquiry into the veracity of petitioners claim that the property was his family
home; conduct an ocular inspection of the premises; an examination of the title; an
DOCTRINE: The family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and free interview of members of the community where the alleged family home is located, in
from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is order to determine if petitioner actually resided within the premises of the claimed family
situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such properties, home; order a submission of photographs of the premises, depositions, and/or
which must remain with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized affidavits of proper individuals/parties; or a solemn examination of the petitioner, his
by creditors except in certain special cases. children and other witnesses. At the same time, the respondent is given the opportunity
to cross-examine and present evidence to the contrary;
 Petitioner Albino Josef was the defendant in a case for collection of sum of 3. If the property is accordingly found to constitute petitioners family home, the court
money filed by respondent Otelio Santos, who claimed that petitioner failed to should determine:
pay the shoe materials which he bought on credit from respondent on various a) if the obligation sued upon was contracted or incurred prior to, or after, the
dates in 1994. effectivity of the Family Code;
 RTC: petitioner Josef is liable to respondent in the amount of P404,836.50 b) if petitioners spouse is still alive, as well as if there are other beneficiaries
with interest at 12% per annum. CA affirmed. of the family home;
 Respondent moved for issuance of a writ of execution. c) if the petitioner has more than one residence for the purpose of determining
o The trial court granted the motion and issued a writ of execution which of them, if any, is his family home; and
o Certain personal properties subject of the writ of execution were d) its actual location and value, for the purpose of applying the provisions of
auctioned off. Thereafter, a real property located at Marikina City was Articles 157 and 160 of the Family Code.
sold by way of public auction to fully satisfy the judgment credit.
o Respondent emerged as the winning bidder and a Certificate of Sale Quotable quotes (lol):
was issued in his favor.  The family home is the dwelling place of a person and his family, a sacred
 Petitioner filed an original petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, symbol of family love and repository of cherished memories that last during
questioning the sheriff’s levy and sale of the abovementioned personal and one’s lifetime.
real properties.  It is the sanctuary of that union which the law declares and protects as a
o Petitioner claimed that the personal properties did not belong to him sacred institution; and likewise a shelter for the fruits of that union.
but to his children; and that the real property was his family home  The protection of the family home is just as necessary in the preservation of
thus exempt from execution. the family as a basic social institution, and since no custom, practice or
o Respondent argues that petitioner’s alleged family home has not agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect, the
been shown to be judicially or extrajudicially constituted. trial courts failure to observe the proper procedures to determine the veracity
of petitioners allegations, is unjustified.
ISSUE #1: W/N THE LEVY AND SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY ALLEGED TO BE
PETITIONER’S FAMILY HOME IS VOID – YES PETITIONER FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI GRANTED.
 Instead of inquiring into the nature of petitioner’s allegations, the trial court RTC ORDER AND WRITS OF EXECUTION DECLARED VOID.
ignored the same and granted respondent’s motion for execution. RTC DIRECTED TO: 1) conduct a solemn inquiry into the nature of the real property;
 The trial court’s Order did not resolve nor take into account petitioners 2) conduct an inquiry into ownership of all other properties.
allegations in his Opposition, which are material and relevant in the resolution
of the motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
 This is serious error on the part of the trial court. It should have made an
earnest determination of the truth to petitioners claim that the house and lot in
which he and his children resided was their duly constituted family home.
 Since it did not, the trial court’s Order is thus null and void.