SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO
SPOUSES DE MESA vs. SPOUSES ACERO
G.R. No. 185064. January 16, 2012
FACTS:
Sometime in September 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio D. Acero, Jr. in the amount of P100,000.00, which was secured by a mortgage over the property, where a house was constructed thereon in 1987, they jointly purchased in 1984 while they were still merely cohabiting before their marriage. As payment, Araceli issued a check payable to Claudio. But it was dishonored as the account from which it was drawn had already been closed. The petitioners failed to heed Claudio’s subsequent demand for payment. Thus, on April 26, 1990, Claudio filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against the petitioners. In 1992, the RTC rendered a Decision acquitting the petitioners but ordering them to pay Claudio the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from date of demand until fully paid. In 1993, a writ of execution was issued and Sheriff Samonte levied upon the subject property. On March 9, 1994, the subject property was sold on public auction; and Claudio was the highest bidder.
Petitioners, meanwhile, asserted that the subject property is a family home, which is exempt from execution under the Family Code and, thus, could not have been validly levied upon for purposes of satisfying the March 15, 1993 writ of execution.
ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the subject property is a family home.
2.Whether or not the subject property is exempt from execution.
HELD:
1.YES.
The rules on constitution of family homes, for purposes of exemption from execution, could be summarized as follows:
First, family residences constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or before August 3, 1988 must be constituted as a family home either judicially or extrajudicially in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code in order to be exempt from execution;
Second, family residences constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 are automatically deemed to be family homes and thus exempt from execution from the time it was constituted and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein;
Third, family residences which were not judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, but were existing thereafter, are considered as family homes by operation of law and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.
Here, the subject property became a family residence sometime in January 1987. There was no showing, however, that the same was judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. Still, when the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988, the subject property became a family home by operation of law and was thus prospectively exempt from execution. The petitioners were thus correct in asserting that the subject property was a family home.
2.NO.
The petitioners should have asserted the subject property being a family home and its being exempted from execution at the time it was levied or within a reasonable time thereafter. Having failed to set up and prove to the sheriff the supposed exemption of the subject property before the sale thereof at public auction, the petitioners now are barred from raising the same. Failure to do so estop them from later claiming the said exemption.
The petitioners allowed a considerable time to lapse before claiming that the subject property is a family home and its exemption from execution and forced sale under the Family Code. The petitioners allowed the subject property to be levied upon and the public sale to proceed. One (1) year lapsed from the time the subject property was sold until a Final Deed of Sale was issued to Claudio and, later, Araceli’s Torrens title was cancelled and a new one issued under Claudio’s name, still, the petitioner remained silent. In fact, it was only after the respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, or approximately four (4) years from the time of the auction sale, that the petitioners claimed that the subject property is a family home, thus, exempt from execution.
For all intents and purposes, the petitioners’ negligence or omission to assert their right within a reasonable time gives rise to the presumption that they have abandoned, waived or declined to assert it. Since the exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal right, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to invoke and prove the same within the prescribed period and it is not the sheriff’s duty to presume or raise the status of the subject property as a family home.
G.R. No. 185064. January 16, 2012
FACTS:
Sometime in September 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio D. Acero, Jr. in the amount of P100,000.00, which was secured by a mortgage over the property, where a house was constructed thereon in 1987, they jointly purchased in 1984 while they were still merely cohabiting before their marriage. As payment, Araceli issued a check payable to Claudio. But it was dishonored as the account from which it was drawn had already been closed. The petitioners failed to heed Claudio’s subsequent demand for payment. Thus, on April 26, 1990, Claudio filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against the petitioners. In 1992, the RTC rendered a Decision acquitting the petitioners but ordering them to pay Claudio the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from date of demand until fully paid. In 1993, a writ of execution was issued and Sheriff Samonte levied upon the subject property. On March 9, 1994, the subject property was sold on public auction; and Claudio was the highest bidder.
Petitioners, meanwhile, asserted that the subject property is a family home, which is exempt from execution under the Family Code and, thus, could not have been validly levied upon for purposes of satisfying the March 15, 1993 writ of execution.
ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the subject property is a family home.
2.Whether or not the subject property is exempt from execution.
HELD:
1.YES.
The rules on constitution of family homes, for purposes of exemption from execution, could be summarized as follows:
First, family residences constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or before August 3, 1988 must be constituted as a family home either judicially or extrajudicially in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code in order to be exempt from execution;
Second, family residences constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 are automatically deemed to be family homes and thus exempt from execution from the time it was constituted and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein;
Third, family residences which were not judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, but were existing thereafter, are considered as family homes by operation of law and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.
Here, the subject property became a family residence sometime in January 1987. There was no showing, however, that the same was judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. Still, when the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988, the subject property became a family home by operation of law and was thus prospectively exempt from execution. The petitioners were thus correct in asserting that the subject property was a family home.
2.NO.
The petitioners should have asserted the subject property being a family home and its being exempted from execution at the time it was levied or within a reasonable time thereafter. Having failed to set up and prove to the sheriff the supposed exemption of the subject property before the sale thereof at public auction, the petitioners now are barred from raising the same. Failure to do so estop them from later claiming the said exemption.
The petitioners allowed a considerable time to lapse before claiming that the subject property is a family home and its exemption from execution and forced sale under the Family Code. The petitioners allowed the subject property to be levied upon and the public sale to proceed. One (1) year lapsed from the time the subject property was sold until a Final Deed of Sale was issued to Claudio and, later, Araceli’s Torrens title was cancelled and a new one issued under Claudio’s name, still, the petitioner remained silent. In fact, it was only after the respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, or approximately four (4) years from the time of the auction sale, that the petitioners claimed that the subject property is a family home, thus, exempt from execution.
For all intents and purposes, the petitioners’ negligence or omission to assert their right within a reasonable time gives rise to the presumption that they have abandoned, waived or declined to assert it. Since the exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal right, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to invoke and prove the same within the prescribed period and it is not the sheriff’s duty to presume or raise the status of the subject property as a family home.
Comments
Post a Comment