Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    (B232) LAW 100 - Modequillo v. Breva (GR No. 86355)

    Uploaded by

    Agent Blue
    The Supreme Court upheld the levy of execution on Jose Modequillo's residential property to satisfy a judgment from a 1988 Court of Appeals decision in a vehicular accident case. The property did not qualify as a family home exempt from execution under the Family Code because the accident and judgment both preceded the 1988 effectivity date of the Family Code, when the property was first deemed constituted as a family home. While occupied as a family residence since 1969, the Family Code did not apply retroactively to make it exempt from debts incurred prior to August 1988.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (B232) LAW 100 - Modequillo v. Breva (GR No. 86355)

    Uploaded by

    Agent Blue
    14 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the levy of execution on Jose Modequillo's residential property to satisfy a judgment from a 1988 Court of Appeals decision in a vehicular accident case. The property did not qualify as a family home exempt from execution under the Family Code because the accident and judgment both preceded the 1988 effectivity date of the Family Code, when the property was first deemed constituted as a family home. While occupied as a family residence since 1969, the Family Code did not apply retroactively to make it exempt from debts incurred prior to August 1988.

    Original Title

    [B232] LAW 100 - Modequillo v. Breva (GR No. 86355)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the levy of execution on Jose Modequillo's residential property to satisfy a judgment from a 1988 Court of Appeals decision in a vehicular accident case. The property did not qualify as a family home exempt from execution under the Family Code because the accident and judgment both preceded the 1988 effectivity date of the Family Code, when the property was first deemed constituted as a family home. While occupied as a family residence since 1969, the Family Code did not apply retroactively to make it exempt from debts incurred prior to August 1988.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    14 views2 pages

    (B232) LAW 100 - Modequillo v. Breva (GR No. 86355)

    Uploaded by

    Agent Blue
    The Supreme Court upheld the levy of execution on Jose Modequillo's residential property to satisfy a judgment from a 1988 Court of Appeals decision in a vehicular accident case. The property did not qualify as a family home exempt from execution under the Family Code because the accident and judgment both preceded the 1988 effectivity date of the Family Code, when the property was first deemed constituted as a family home. While occupied as a family residence since 1969, the Family Code did not apply retroactively to make it exempt from debts incurred prior to August 1988.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    MODEQUILLO v.

    BREVA
    GR No. 86355
    May 31, 1990
    Gancayco, J.

    SUBJECT MATTER:
    The Family Home

    DOCTRINE(S):
    Family Code
    Art. 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family, is the
    dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated.
    Art. 153. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence.
    From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, the family home
    continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to
    the extent of the value allowed by law.
    Art. 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except:
    (1) For nonpayment of taxes;
    (2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
    (3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and
    (4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have rendered service
    or furnished material for the construction of the building.
    Art. 162. The provisions in this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are
    applicable

    ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:


    PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
    Petitioner(s): JOSE MODEQUILLO,
    Parties
    Respondent(s): HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, FRANCISCO SALINAS, FLORIPER ABELLAN-SALINAS,
    JUANITO CULAN-CULAN and DEPUTY SHERIFF FERNANDO PLATA

    SUMMARY:
    Summarize the case in not more than 5 to 10 sentences.

    ANTECEDENT FACTS:
    ● An action for damages arising from a vehicular accident on March 16, 1976 was commenced against Jose
    Modequillo and Benito Malubay.
    ● January 29, 1988, a judgment was rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09218
    ○ Found Modequillo and Malubay jointly and severally liable to:
    1. Salinas spouses: P 50,000
    2. Culan-Culan: P 10,000
    3. Both: P 7,000
    ● Having become final and executory, RTC Davao City issued a writ of execution.
    ● The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land located at Poblacion Malalag, Davao del Sur and a parcel of
    agricultural land both registered under the name of Jose Modequillo.
    ● Modequillo filed a motion to quash and/or to set aside levy of execution on the grounds that:
    1. The residential land located at Poblacion Malalag is where the family home is built since 1969 prior to the
    commencement of the action, and as such is exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment under
    Articles 152 and 153 of the Family Code; and
    2. the judgment sought to be enforced against the family home is not one of those enumerated in Article 155
    of the Family Code. As for the agricultural land, he contended that the same cannot be subject to
    execution because it still forms a part of the public land since its transfer from the previous possessor to
    Modequillo was not approved by the government.
    ● Trial court denied the motion to quash and its motion for reconsideration.
    ● Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari,

    ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):


    1. 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 -- YES

    RATIO:
    1. Such family home may be executed to satisfy the judgment of the CA.
    ○ Articles 152 and 153 FC governs the constitution of a family home.
    i. A family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family
    residence. There’s ​no need to constitute it judicially or extrajudicially as required in the
    Civil Code​.
    ii. If the family actually resides in the premises, it is a family home as contemplated by law.
    ○ Generally, it is exempted from execution, forced sale, or attachment​ from the time of its constitution
    and for so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein. Article 155 of the Family Code
    enumerates the exceptions when the family home may be subjected to execution, forced sale, or
    attachment, namely:
    1. Nonpayment of taxes
    2. Debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home
    3. Debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after the constitution
    4. Debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have
    rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building.
    ○ In the present case, Modequillo’s residential house and lot was ​not constituted as a family home
    judicially or extrajudicially​. It became a family home by operation of law under the provisions of the
    Family Code.
    i. Hence, it was ​deemed constituted only upon the effectivity of the Family Code​ which was on
    August 3, 1988.
    ○ His contention that it should have been considered as a family home from the time it was occupied in
    1969 is not well-taken because of Art. 162 of the Family Code.
    i. Art. 162 FC​ does not mean that Arts. 152 and 153 of the Family Code have retroactive effect. It
    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
    family homes constituted under the Family Code.
    ○ Since the vehicular accident which became the basis of the judgment occurred on March 16, 1976 and
    the money judgment became final an executory on January 22, 1988, both dates having ​preceded the
    effectivity of the Family Code​, this ​family home of Modequillo does not fall under the exemptions
    from execution provided in the Family Code.

    DISPOSITIVE:
    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.

    You might also like