Cabang vs Basay, GR No.

180587, March 20, 2009 YNARES-

SANTIAGO, J.
When terminated, FC 153 compare with FC 159, 102 (9), 129 (9)
Doctrine
A family home cannot be established on property held in co-ownership
with third persons. The family home must be established on the
properties of (a) the absolute community, or (b) the conjugal
partnership, or (c) the exclusive property of either spouse with the
consent of the other.

Facts
• Cabang has been occupying the Lot 7777 owned by Basay.
Cabang believed that the said property is Lot 7778 that they
rightfully owned. The Supreme Court ruled in favour Basay filed a
complaint about the recovery of the said lot.

• RTC ruled in favour of Cabang. CA ruled in favour of Basay. The

case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Cabang argued that the
said lot cannot be subject of Motion for Execution as it is a family
home.

• However, the Supreme Court held that it is not a family home but
a residential house because a family home cannot be established
on property held in co-ownership with third persons. It must be
established on the properties of ACP, CPG, or exclusive property
of either spouse.

Issue
1) Whether or not the appellate tribunal erred in reversing the judgment
of the trial court.
2) Whether the said property is a duly constituted family home which is
not subject to execution.
Ruling
1. No, the CA did not err in reversing RTC’s dismissal of the motion
for Execution. Under Article 153 of the Family Code, a family
home is deemed constituted on a house and a lot from the time it
is occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute
the same judicially or extra-judicially. There can be no question
that a family home is generally exempt from execution, provided it
was duly constituted as such.

2. No. A family home cannot be established on property held in co-

ownership with third persons. The family home must be
established on the properties of (a) the absolute community, or (b)
the conjugal partnership, or (c) the exclusive property of either
spouse with the consent of the other. In this case, the said
property on which their alleged family homestands is owned by
respondents. Therefore, it cannot be considered a family home but
merely residential. It is likewise a given that the family home must
be constituted on property owned by the persons constituting it.

Therein lies the fatal flaw in the postulate of petitioners. For all
their arguments to the contrary, the stark and immutable fact is
that the property on which their alleged family home stands is
owned by respondents and the question of ownership had
been long laid to rest with the finality of the appellate court’s
judgment. Thus, petitioners’ continued stay on the subject land is
only by mere tolerance of respondents.
Petition denied, CA judgment AFFIRMED.
“The family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository
of cherished memories that last during one’s lifetime. It is the dwelling
house where the husband and wife, or an unmarried head of a family
reside, including the land on which it is situated. It is constituted jointly
by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family.”