“The family home is a real right”
Facts:
The two parcels of land owned by Pablo Taneo (father of the petitioners) located at Opol, Misamis Oriental were levied to satisfy the judgment for recovery of property in favor of private respondent Abdon Gilig. The subject properties were sold on February 12, 1966 to the private respondent as the highest bidder. Pablo Taneo failed to redeem the said properties, and aa final deed of conveyance was executed on February 9, 1968, in favor of the private respondent. 9 years after, Pablo Taneo died. And on (8 years after) November 5, 1985, the herein petitioners as legal heirs of Pablo Taneo, filed an action to declare the deed of conveyance void and to quiet title over the land claiming that one parcel of land had been acquired through free patent under Commonwealth Act No. 141 and the other parcel of land is a family home, hence, both parcels of land are inalienable and not subject to any encumbrance for the payment of debt. After trial, the RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
- Is the “free patent land/homestead” (under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141) which they inherited from their father EXCEMPT/CANNOT be alienated or encumbered as protected by law? No.
- Is the house which their father constituted as family home exempt from execution? No
Ruling:
(1) On free patent land
• February 9, 1968, the date of issuance of the deed of conveyance. Pablo has no more rights over the land under Commonwealth Act 141 which he could have transferred to herein petitioners.
• Pablo’s application for free patent was only approved on Oct 1972 (free patent commences on the date of approval)
It is clear from the records that the judgment debt and the execution sale took place prior to the approval of the application for free patent.
(2) On family home
The money judgment against Pablo Taneo was registered on January 24, 1964. Pablo registered the family home only on January 1966 or 2 years after. hus, at that time when the “debt” was incurred, the family home was not yet constituted or even registered. Clearly, petitioners’ alleged family home is not excempt as it falls under Article 243.
The petition was DENIED.
SYLLABUS
CONCEPT OF FAMILY HOME – A family home is the dwelling place of a person and his family. It is said, however, that 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.||| (Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, [March 9, 1999], 363 PHIL 652-666)
WAYS TO CONSTITUTE – Under the Family Code, however, registration was no longer necessary. Article 153 of the Family Code provides that the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied in the family residence.
PROVISIONS on FAMILY HOME NOT RETROACTIVE – Chapter 2 (“The Family Home) Title V (THE FAMILY) does not have retroactive effect. It 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 (Modequillo vs. Breva, supra)||| (Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, [March 9, 1999], 363 PHIL 652-666)
English