THE FAMILY HOME
at the time of their occupation.
SIARI VALLEY ESTATE vs LUCASAN
- CFI ordered Filemon Lucasan to pay 80k to SVE.
(damages and value of cattle)
- Writ of execution was issued.
- Sheriff levied on lands of the defendant. The
lands were sold to the highest bidder.
- Lucasan files an opposition challenging the
validity of the execution since one of the lands
auctioned was the land where he extrajudicially
constituted as the family home.
ISSUE: Is Lucasan’s family home which was
extrajudicially established exempt from execution?
HELD: NO.
- The family home is exempt from execution
EXCEPT when a debt is incurred before the
family home was registered (CC art 243).
- The reason for this is to protect creditors from a
debtor who may act in bad faith by making such
property a supposed family home for the sole
purpose of defeating the claim against him.
SIDE ISSUE: Levy was still ordered as invalid because
of other issues (re: technicalities on the registry of
deeds).
MODEQUILLO vs BREVA
- Jose Modequillo was ordered by court to pay
for damages (JAN 29, 1988).
- The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land
and a parcel of agricultural land.
- Modequillo filed motion to quash the levy of
execution because the residential land which he
owned is where his family home is is built (since
1969). As such, it should be exempt from
execution.
- Respondents say that the said house and lot
only became a family home in 1988, when the
family code took effect.
- Respondents say that under the Civil Code, the
house and lot did not qualify as a family home.
Since the FC provision on family homes do not
retroact.
ISSUE: Does the FC provision on family homes
retroact?
HELD: NO
- The house and lot became a family home upon
the effectivity of the FC in AUG 3 1988, BUT it
doesn’t mean that all family residences not
considered then as family homes prior to the FC
would be retroactively deemed as family homes
- Since the debt whice arose from the time of the
vehicaular accident(1976) and the judgement
was before the effectivity of the FC, it is not
exempt from execution.
TANEO vs CA
- Judgement was rendered to Taneo ordering him
to pay Gilig in JUNE 1964.
- The sheriff levied two properties of Taneo: a lot
and a residential house.
- Taneo is saying that the residential house is
their family home thus exempt from execution.
ISSUE: Is Taneo’s family home exempt from
execution?
HELD: NO. A debt was incurred before the house
was deemed a family home.
- Before the effectivity of the FC, a family home
must be constituted judicially (filing of petition)
and extra-judicially (registration).
- It turns out:
o The instrument constituting the family
home was registered only in JAN 24
1966.
o The money judgement was rendered on
JAN 24 1964.
- The family home is not exempt from execution
since there was a debt incurred before the
registration of the house as a family home.
VERSOLA vs CA
- Dolores Ledesma secured a P1m loan from Dra
Oh.
- Ledesma sold the house and lot to petitioners
Eduardo and Elsa Versola for 2.5m with a
downpayment of 1m.
- Ledesma asked for the rest of the payment.
Petitioners were only able to give 50k.
- Petitioners secured a loan from Asiatrust Bank
to pay for their remaining balance.
- Bank settled an agreement between parties
that Dr. Oh will give another 450k to Ledesma
making her debt 1.45m.
- Spouses should execute a mortgage to secure a
loan of 2m.
- When Asiatrust tried to register the mortgage
of the spouses, it discovered a notice of levy of
execution on the title in connection with
another of Ledesma’s to Miladay’s Jewels, Inc.
 - Asiatrust refused to grant 2m loan to the
spouses.
- Dra Oh filed case against Asiatrust, petitioners,
and Ledesma. RTC favoured Dra Oh and sheriff
auctioned the said house.
- The petitioners objected to this auction saying
that the house is their family home and should
not be subject to execution.
HELD: The house is not exempted from execution.
- It is not sufficient that the person claiming
exemption merely alleges that such property is
a family home. The claim must be proved to the
Sheriff.
- The records in the case do not disclose that
petitioners proved that the property to be sold
was FH. They simply alleged it, and
presupposed that the sheriff already knew of
such.
- They rigorously asserted such exemption only 2
years after the date of the auction sale.
- Their assertion for exemption, therefore, is a
mere afterthought, a sheer artifice to deprive
private respondent of the fruits of the verdict of
her case.
PATRICIO vs DARIO III
- DARIO III’s mother and brother wanted to
partition the house left by his father.
- DARIO III is saying that the subject property is a
family home since a minor beneficiary is still
living inside the house, DARIO III’s 12 yr old son.
- FC states that if there are beneficiaries who still
survive and living in the family home, it will
continue to be as such for 10 more years.
ISSUE: Is DARIO III’s son still considered as a
beneficiary?
HELD: NO.
- Three requisites must be satisfied for a person
to be considered as a beneficiary.
o They must fall under the relationship
contemplated in ART 154 FC.
o They live in the family home.
o They are dependent for legal support
from the head of the family.
- The 12 yr old grandchild does fall under the
categories of the beneficiary under 154 FC.
(Descendants includes grandchildren and great
grandchildren)
- The 12 yr old grandchild does live in the house.
- BUT as for the third requisite, the grandchild
does not satisfy because he cannot demand
support from his paternal grandparents since
HE HAS PARENTS capable of supporting him.
VENERACION vs MANCILLA
- Elizabeth Mendinueta, mother of the petitioner,
got a loan of P1.2M from Charlie Mancilla.
- Elizabeth mortgaged her house as security for
the loan.
- Elizabeth was not able to pay the debt which
urged Mancilla to file a case for foreclosure of
Elizabeth’s property.
- Elizabeth opposed Mancilla’s claim, she was
praying for the court to lower the interest from
5% to 3%. The prayer was denied and the
judgement became final and executory.
- The house of Elizabeth was sold through an
auction.
- A daughter of Elizabeth replaced her in the case
since she already died. The daughter now points
out that mortgage should be considered invalid
because the property mortgaged is a family
home.
ISSUE: Is the Property mortgaged to pay for the
debt exempt from execution?
HELD: NO
- When Elizabeth opposed the execution of the
debt, she did not raise the issue of the property
being a family home. She was merely praying
that the interest be lowered.
- Because of this, the issue of the property being
a family home was not merited because it was
not raised at the earliest possible opportunity,
not as a mere afterthought.
ARRIOLA vs ARRIOLA
- Fidel had two wives and had a child from both
marriages.
- Fidel died and left a parcel of land.
- The 2nd wife, the son from the first M, and the
son from the 2nd M did not agree on how to
partition the land left by Fidel.
- The son from the first M then sought to sell the
land through public auction.
- The 2nd W and son from 2nd M are challenging
the validity of the sale, saying that a house
(which is constituted as a family home) is
erected on the land.
ISSUE: WoN the auction should include the house
erected.
HELD: NO
- The family home is deemed to have been
constituted by the time the family sets in the
 house and continues to be so 10 years after the
death of the head of the family or until a
beneficiary who is a minor is still residing in the
famly home.
- In this case, Fidel died March 10, 2003, the
house cannot be auctioned up until March 10
2013.
- The house cannot be auctioned moreover if
they cannot give compelling reasons for the
court to think otherwise and ISSUE a partition
of the property.
SPOUSES KELLEY vs PLANTERS
- Auther Kelly failed to pay his debt to Planters
Product Inc which made PPI file and action
against Kelley.
- Makati RTC favored PPI and thus order an
execution of sale of his property w/c was in
Naga.
- Auther and the wife filed a motion to set aside
the said execution because the property in
Naga is their Family home. (w/c the RTC denied)
- The spouses then prayed for the NAGA RTC to
anull the execution made on their home for the
same ground.
- Naga RTC denied the prayer for their lack of
jurisdiction.
- Petitioners appealed to SC
ISSUE: Can the property be exempted from
execution?
HELD: Partially granted to the extent of letting the
petitioners adduce evidence to support their claim.
- SC held that since the only parties to the
original action was Auther and PPI, Kelly was a
stranger to the litigation held in Makati RTC.
- Because of this, the SC held that the NAGA RTC
has jurisdiction over the case.
- **CASE REMANDED***
JOSEF vs SANTOS
- Marikini RTC held Petitioner Albino Josef liable
to Otelio Santos for not being able to pay for
shoe materials.
- Santos moved for the issuance of execution w/c
was opposed by the Albino. Motion was
granted (to be levied upon Albino’s property).
- Albino petitioned to CA saying that the property
is their family home (which would make it
exempt), w/c the CA dismissed for procedural
issues.
- Albino appeals to SC.
ISSUE: Can the property be held exempt from
execution?
HELD: YES
- The trial court erred when is completely ignored
Albino’s opposition to the execution on his
property even when he was able to do so
before the auction. They should have
investigated on that matter.
- The CA likewise erred when it dismissed the
petition of Albino on mere procedural grounds,
considering the gravity of the situation.
- Although the claim for exemption is only being
taken up in the Supreme Court (when the
execution was already finished), the SC still
granted the petition because he was able to
raise it on time (and he was just ignored).
- The petition was granted also because the case
involved matters that strikes the heart of the
basic social institution.
PATERNITY AND FILITATION
-LEGITIMATE CHILDREN
-KINDS OF FILITATION
-BIOLOGICAL NATURAL
PERIDO vs. PERIDO
- Lucio Perido married twice during his lifetime.
He died on 1942
- The children and grandchildren from his first
and second marriages executed a document
entitled “Declaration of Heirship and Extra-
Judicial Partition” where they would partition
amongst themselves the estate of Lucio.
- Eventually, the heirs from the first marriage
backed out from said partition.
- They now say that they are exclusive heirs of
the estate since ALL FIVE CHILDREN of LUCIO
are illegitimate and have no succesional rights.
- Heirs from the 1st M say that the first three
children from the 2nd M are born before the 1 st
wife died in 1905, therefore proving that they
were born out of wedlock.
- The last two were also born out of wedlock as
testified by the heirs from the 1st M
- The case reached the SC, hence the instant case
ISSUE: WoN the children are legitimate?
HELD: YES
- It was found out that the 1st wife died during
the Spanish regime, therefore disproving the
theory that the three children were born out of
wedlock
 - The certificate of titles indicating that he was
single and the testimonies saying that the
children were born out of wedlock were not
sufficient to overcome the presumption of the
capacity of M.
- Lucio and the 2nd wife, who were w/o
impediments to marry, were already living
together as husband and wife before the
children were born, thereby giving rise to the
presumption that the children are legitimate.
LIYAO JR vs TANHOTI-LIYAO
- William Liyao, Jr, represented by his mother
Corazon Garcia filed a civil case praying that
William be recognized as the illegitimate child
of William Liyao, Sr.
- Although Corazon Garcia was married to Ramon
Yulo, she says that she & Liyao Sr had an
adulterous relationship where they begot Liyao
Jr.
- After a lengthy presentation of evidence from
the lower courts for filiation, the SC stated the
proper issue to be tackled
ISSUE: Won William Jr can impugn his own
legitimacy to be able to claim from the estate of his
supposed father, William Sr.
HELD: He cannot.
- A child born during the existence of a valid M is
presumed to be legitimate. In this case, since
William Jr is born during the M of Corazon
Garcia and Ramon Yulo, he is presumed to be
their legitimate son.
- Also, the right to impugn the legitimacy of the
child only resides upon his presumed legitimate
father, Ramon Yulo.
- The CC does permit the heirs to impugn their
own legitimacies but only upon exceptional
cases (when confronted with scandals).
- William Jr, cannot choose his own filiation. If
the H, presumed to be the father, does not
impugn the legitimacy, then the status of the
child is fixed.
SSS vs Aguas
- Pablo Aguas, a member and pensioner of the
SSS died on 1996.
- The surviving spouse, Rosanna, filed the claim
for death benefits. She also stated that Pablo
was survived by a 12 yr old child, Jeylnn. (JEYLIN
NALANG)
- SSS granted her the death benefits until the
sister of Pablo contested her claim by saying
that she abandoned the family home and lived
with another man. She also says that Pablo and
Rosana had no children. She also presented the
BC of one Jefren dela Pena w/c indicates that
the mother is Rosanna and the father is one
Romeo dela Pena.
- SSS suspended her benefits.
- This prompted Rosanna to file a petition for the
restoration of the benefits. She presented:
o Their M certificate.
o Janet’s Cert of Live birth.
o Jeylnn’s Cert of live birth.
o Pablo’s death cert.
Issue: Won Rosanna, Janet, and Jeylnn are entitled to
the death benefits.
Held: Yes for Jeylnn, and NO for Janet and Rosanna.
- Jeylnn’s clain is justified by her BC w/c was
authenticated by the civil registry. It indicated
there that Rosanna and Pablo were Married on
1977 and Jeylnn was born on 1996. The BC was
also signed by Pablo strengthening the proof of
his paternity.
- Janet’s birth date was not substantially proven
since the BC was not authenticated by the
registry. It was only a mere photocopy and is
w/o probative weight.
- Also, it appears that she was merely adopted by
Pablo and Rosanna w/o undergoing any legal
proceedings for adoption. Since RA 1161
considers only legally adopted children as
dependents, she cannot be considered as such.
- As for Rosanna, she was not able to present
evidence that she was dependent upon the
support of Pablo at the time of his death even
though they were already living separately.