Modequillo v. Breva

GR. No. 86355, 31 May 1990

FACTS:

The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land located at PoblacionMalalag, Davao del Sur on July 1988, registered in the name of Jose Mondequillo and a parcel of agricultural land located at DalagbongBulacan, Malalag, Davao de Sur also registered in the latter’s name. A motion to quash was filed by the petitioner alleging that the residential land is where the family home is built since 1969 prior the commencement of this case and as such is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Article 152 and 153 except for liabilities mentioned in Article 155 thereof, and that the judgment sought to be enforced against the family home is not one of those enumerated. With regard to the agricultural land, it is alleged that it is still part of the public land and the transfer in his favor by the original possessor and applicant who was a member of a cultural minority. The residential house in the present case became a family home by operation of law under Article 153.

ISSUE:

WON the subject property is deemed to be a family home in as much as it does not fall under the exemption from execution.

RULING:

No. The subject property is deemed to be a family home but it does not fall under the exemption from execution of the money judgment aforecited.

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.

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. Therefore, this case does not fall under the exemptions from execution provided in the Family Code.

As to the agricultural land, trial court correctly ruled that the levy to be made shall be on whatever rights the petitioner may have on the land.

* Case digest by Cherrie Mae E. Aguila-Granada, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By | 2017-10-21T03:48:52+00:00 October 21st, 2017|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment