Family Code: Title V | Chapter 1
The Family as an Institution
Art 149: The state recognition of the
family as the foundation of the nation, as
emphasized in our constitution
Article II, Section 12, 13, and 14
Article XIII, Section 14
Article XV, Section 1, 2, 3, and 4
Art 150: The Family Relations are only
between the following:
 Between husband and wife
 Between parents and children
 Between ascendants and
descendants
 Between brothers and sisters,
whether full or half-blood
Art 151: Effects of family relation:
1. Requisite of “earnest effort to
compromise” is a requirement before
filing a suit ( should be raised before
filing ANSWER to the COMPLAINT);
2. Failure to exert compromise between
family members is a ground for
dismissal of the case;
3. But the requisite will not be needed
on cases not compromisable which are:
a) Annulment of marriage
b) Legal separation
c) Future support
d) Future legitimate
e) Jurisdiction of the court
Illustrative case:
EARNEST EFFORT TO
COMPROMISE: NOT APPLICABLE
In the case of Gayon vs. Gayon, the
court reiterated that the she has a claim
to the property in question as a spouse,
and that it should not only be Mrs.
Gayon that should be included in the
land ownership dispute but also the
legitimate heir which will be in the case
not as representatives but owners.
But when Mrs. Gayon claimed that
the case filed should be dismissed as the
plaintiff failed to show earnest effort to
compromise since she is the
sister-in-law of the plaintiff, the court
reiterated that the provision on family
relation is construed strictly to members
of the family, the requisite does not
apply.
In the case of Margaret Versoza et
al vs. Jose Ma. Versoza, the Supreme
Court held that an earnest effort to
compromise is not necessary on the
grounds of future support, since such
complaint has no compromise.
EARNEST EFFORT TO
COMPROMISE: CAN NOT BE
APPLIED
 In the case of Dr. Mariano Favis Sr.
vs. Juan Gonzales, the motion to dismiss
on the ground that the earnest efforts
towards a compromise agreement have
not been made was dismissed by the
court on the ground that such motion is
only acceptable before an Answer to the
complaint was submitted, the court said,
“ within the time for but before filing the
answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim”.
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT NOT
VALID BY LAW
a) Civil status of person
b) Validity of marriage or legal
separation
c) Any ground for legal separation
d) Jurisdiction of the courts
e) Future legitimates
In the case of Albano vs. Gapusan
(AM 1022-MJ), a municipal judge was
censured for having notarized the void
agreement between a husband and a
wife’s separation and extra judicial
liquidation of their conjugal partnership.
Family Code: Title V | Chapter 2
The Family Home
What is a Family Home?
Family home refers to house and lot
where a family resides, could be married
or unmarried husband and wife.
The family home should be owned
and not leased, an devoted for residential
or dwelling and not for commercial
purposes.
Art. 152: When creditors seize the
family house, they virtually shatter the
family itself.
Art. 153: Provides for the exemption of
family house from the following:
1) Execution
2) Forced sale or attachment
Exception to the exemption:
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, materialmen and
others who have rendered service or
furnished material for the construction
of the building.
Art. 154. The beneficiaries of a family
home are:
1) The husband and wife, or an
unmarried person who is the head of the
family; and
2) Their parents, ascendants,
descendants, brothers and sisters,
whether the relationship be legitimate or
illegitimate, who are living in the family
home and who depend upon the head of
the family for lead support.Illustrative
Case:
In the case of Manacop vs. Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court denied the
Petition of Review due to lack of merit.
Manacop claims that the property in
question is his family home and
therefore should not be subject as
attachment to the order of execution for
the collection of unpaid debt from E&L
Mercantile amounting to around
3.3million pesos.
The court’s decision are on the
following grounds:
1. That the House was bought on March
10, 1972, but family home was
constituted on August 3, 1988. Since
Family Code has no retroactive effect,
thus Article 153 should be observed,
which will only apply if the family home
was constituted, the court states,
“ 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
required in the Civil Code. If the family
actually resides in the premises, it is,
therefore, a family home as
contemplated by law. Thus, the creditors
should take the necessary precautions to
protect their interest before extending
credit to the spouses or head of the
family who owns the home.” However
Manacop was residing in the US, and
would only go home when on vacation,
this does not constitute a family home as
it is reiterated that it should be occupied
by the family or its beneficiaries.
2. The house was not occupied by a
beneficiaries listed on Article 154 of this
code, on this case the house was
occupied by an overseer.
3. The house became part of the levied
property due to indebtedness, which is
an exception to the application of this
provision.
What is the court’s duty on family
home before rendering a decision?
In the case of Albino Josef vs.
Otelio Santos, the Supreme Court finds a
serious error when the trial court
rendered a decision without taking into
the account of the petitioner’s allegation
that the property in question is a family
home, thus the court states the duty of
the court to observe the following
procedure:
1. Determine if petitioner’s obligation
to respondent falls under either of the
exceptions under Article 155 of the
Family Code;
2. Make an inquiry into the veracity of
petitioner’s claim that the property was
his family home; conduct an ocular
inspection of the premises; an
examination of the title; an interview of
members of the community where the
alleged family home is located, in order
to determine if petitioner actually
resided within the premises of the
claimed family home; order a
submission of photographs of the
premises, depositions, and/or affidavits
of proper individuals/parties; or a
solemn examination of the petitioner, his
children and other witnesses. At the
same time, the respondent is given the
opportunity to cross-examine and
present evidence to the contrary;
3. If the property is accordingly found
to constitute petitioner’s family home,
the court should determine:
a) if the obligation sued upon was
contracted or incurred prior to, or after,
the effectivity of the Family Code;
b) if petitioner’s spouse is still alive, as
well as if there are other beneficiaries of
the family home;
c) if the petitioner has more than one
residence for the purpose of determining
which of them, if any, is his family
home; and
d) its actual location and value, for the
purpose of applying the provisions of
Articles 157 and 160 of the Family
Code.
Art.156 - under this provision a property
purchased under installment plan may be
constituted as a family home;
Art 157, provides for the maximum
valued of family home which may be
adjusted by law.
Urban are - 300,000
Rural area - 200,000
Effects of the amount on family home:
In case the family home is greater
than the listed amount the creditor may
apply for judgement to direct the sale of
family home the amount stipulated will
be given to the debtor and the rest of it
will be fore the payment of loan.
Illustrative case:
The Supreme Court on the case of
Eulogio vs. Bell, Sr. reiterated the rights
of the family for a family home. In this
case it was established that the house in
question is a family home of the Bells’,
and though their parents owed the
Eugolio some amount of money where
the court rendered maney judgement,
such judgement can not be enforced on
Bells’ right over family home.
While the property in question
which petitioner believed to have a
value of more than 300,000 pesos which
is the maximum value of family home
for urban area, the petitioner should
establish the following facts:
1) there was an increase in its actual
value;
2) the increase resulted from voluntary
improvements on the property
introduced by the persons
constituting the family home, its
owners or any of its beneficiaries;
and
3) the increased actual value exceeded
the maximum allowed under Article
157.
Since this was not proved by the
petitioner, the Supreme Court enjoined
the sale of the family home.
Art 158: No concurrence in this
provision if the beneficiaries are not
deemed of legal age.
Art. 159: This rule is applicable
regardless of whoever owns the property
or constituted the family home.
Illustrative case:
The case of Arriola vs. Arriola is a
case between siblings that could not
decide on how they will partition the
properties therefore they came up with a
resolution of selling or putting the
property in auction.
However, one of the siblings have
decided that the “house” should not be
included in the auction.
Though the court averred that the
house is deemed part of one of the lot in
question, the court recognized that the
subject property is a family home, which
in Art. 159 declared such property to be
shielded from immediate partition for 10
years or so for as long as there is a
compelling reason to for the court to set
aside the restriction and order the
partition of the property.
Art. 160: states that the creditors who
can not make the family home liable to
satisfy claims have recourse
Art. 161: provides for only one person
who may constitute and be the sole
beneficiary of a family home.
Art 162: states that all family residences
at the time of the effectivity of Family
Code, August 3, 1988, are considered
family homes and are prospectively
entitled to the benefits accorded to
family home but without retroactive
effect.
Illustrative case:
The issue in Modequillo vs. Breva
is whether or not a final judgment of the
Court of Appeals in an action for
damages may be satisfied by way of
execution of a family home constituted
under the Family Code. The case was
decided by the Court of Appeals on
January 29, 1988. The vehicular
accident which caused the decision for
damages was on March 16, 1976.
Thus, though the petitioner has been
residing in the subject property since
1969, the court ruled that it does not fall
under exemption from execution since
Family code has no retroactive effect.
Related Statutes on Family Laws
 Republic Act No. 8369: Family
Courts of 1997
 Republic Act No. 8370 Children’s
Television Act of 1997
 Administrative Matter: 004-7 SC:
Proposed Rule of Examination of
Child Witness
 Republic Act No. 8972: Solo
parents Welfare Act of 2000
 Republic Act No. 8980: Childhood
Care and Development Act.