Facts
Vehicular accident on March 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising therefrom was rendered by CA on January 29, 1988 (Jan 1988) against Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay and ordering them to pay to spouses Salinas and Culan-Culan a total of P60,000 worth of damages. 6 months after, the sheriff levied two lands of Modequillo but the latter filed a motion to set aside the levy of execution on the residential land located at Poblacion Malalag, Davao del Sur (600 square meters, MV of P34,550.00) on the ground that it is their family home since 1969 prior to the commencement of the case. He contends that such is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Articles 152 and 153 of the Family Code
Art. 152. 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)
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. (223a)
and lot is exempt from payment of the obligation enumerated in Article 155 of the Family Code;
“Art. 155. 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, materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building.”
| Petitioner | Defendants |
| it should be considered a family home from the time it was occupied by petitioner and his family in 1969, while Family Code 1988. Thus it is exempted. Trial court erred when it declared that Article 162 of the Family Code does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect. In other words, Article 162 states it has retroactive effect. |
Issue:
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.
Ruling:
- it should be considered a family home from the time it was occupied by petitioner and his family in 1969. No.
- Ratio: Under Article 162 of the Family Code, it is provided that “the provisions of this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable.” It does not mean that Articles 152 and 153 of said Code have a retroactive effect such that all 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 prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code. Article 162 does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect.
- Is the family home of petitioner exempt from execution of the money judgment aforecited? No.
- The debt or liability which was the basis of the judgment arose or was incurred at the time of the vehicular accident on March 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising therefrom was rendered by the appellate court on January 29, 1988. Both preceded the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. This case does not fall under the exemptions from execution provided in the Family Code.
- If they reside on Sept 1988, his contention will stand.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
English