Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990

-

Summary:  On March 16, 1976, Jose Modequillo got involved in a vehicular accident. The CA ordered Jose Modequillo to indemnify the victims in the said accidents.  On January 29, 1988 the judgment became final and executory, RTC issued a writ of execution. The sheriff levied the ff properties of Jose: a parcel of residential land and a parcel of agricultural land, both of which are located in Davao del Sur. Jose filed a motion to quash and/or to set aside levy of execution.  He argued that the residential house and lot was first occupied as his family residence in 1969, and was duly constituted as a family home under the Family Code (alleging Family Code, Arts 152 & 153 had retroactive effect), and as such exempted from payment of the obligation as stated in Art 155 of the Family Code. As to the agricultural land, he alleged that it was still a public land.

The motion was denied. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. SC in affirming the trial court's decision, ruled that the residential house and lot of petitioner was not constituted as a family home whether judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code. It became a family home by operation of law only upon the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, which was after the money judgment of the CA became final. Hence, the said property is not exempted from the execution provided in the Family Code.

As to the agricultural land, the levy to be made by the sheriff shall be on whatever rights the petitioner may have on the land.

---------------------------------------

Ponente: GANCAYCO, J.

Additional Facts:

Petitioner's Arguments:

(1) Art 162 of the Family Code states that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect.

(2) Applying Arts 152 and 153,  the residential house and lot was then duly constituted as a family home as early as 1969, when it was first occupied as his family residence. Therefore, the residential house and lot is exempt from payment of the obligation enumerated in Art 155 of the Family Code; and that the decision in this case pertaining to damages arising from a vehicular accident is not one of those instances enumerated under Art 155 of the FC when the family home may be levied upon and sold on execution.

(3) The agricultural land, although under his name, 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 was not approved by the proper government agency.

---------------------------------------

Issue: WON a final judgment of the Court of Appeals in an action for damages may be satisfied by way of execution of a family home constituted under the Family Code.

Held: In this case, Yes.

The residential house and lot of petitioner became a family home by operation of law only upon the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988.

Art 162 of Family Code provides that "the provisions of this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable." It does not mean that Arts 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. Art 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.

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.

This case, therefore, does not fall under the exemptions from execution provided in the Family Code.

DECISION: The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.

An audio version of this digest is available at YouTube. Click this link to listen. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp., G.R. Nos. 75875, 75951 & 75975-76, December 15, 1989

-
Summary:  American Standard Inc (ASI), a foreign corporation in US entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Filipino investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. One such provision is: As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (Section 5(a) of the Agreement) . The 30% capital stock of ASI was later increased to 40%. On Mar 8, 1983, the election of the members of the board of directors was held. - Th...
Read more

Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

-
Ponente: KAPUNAN J. A Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition. Summary:  Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines Respondent: Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo M. Lacson, Gen. Edgar B. Aglipay, Gen. Angelo Reyes President Estrada deployed the Marines to patrol certain parts of Metro Manila. IBP questioned  the constitutionality of this action. The SC decided that the IBP has no locus standi but chose to take cognizance of the petition as it is of paramount importance to the public (especially in light of Martial Law). SC decided that Estrada's deployment of Marines is constitutional and dismissed the filed petition. ---------------------------------------- Facts: President Estrada, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and through a verbal directive, deployed the Marines, to join the PNP in visibility patrols in response to alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila. The PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B....
Read more

Joaquin v. Navarro, G.R. Nos. L-5426-28, May 29, 1953

-
Ponente: TUASON, J. Facts:  On Feb 6, 1945, the Navarro Family took refuge in the ground floor of the German Club Building. All three of Joaquin Navarro, Sr’s daughters died when the Japanese started shooting at the people inside the building. Joaquin Navarro Sr, his son Joaquin Navarro Jr, Adela Conde(his son's wife) and a   family friend Francisco Lopez abandoned the building. Angela Joaquin Navarro refused to join them. As they came out, Joaquin Jr was shot in the head by a Japanese soldier. Minutes later the German Club Building, which was on fire, collapsed. Joaquin Navarro Sr, Adela Conde and Francisco Lopez managed to reach an air raid shelter. They stayed there for 3 days. On Feb 10, the three fled toward St. Theresa Academy, but unfortunately met Japanese patrols, who fired at them Joaquin Navarro Sr and his daughter in law died. Franciso Lopez survived. After the war, three proceedings were instituted in the CFI Manila for the summary settlement of the estates...
Read more