Professional Documents
Culture Documents
appealedDecisionAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
YnaresSantiago
(Chairperson),
AustriaMartinez,
ChicoNazario andNachura, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.Thesuabilityofagovernmentofficialdependson
whethertheofficialconcernedwasactingwithinhisofficial
orjurisdictionalcapacity,andwhethertheactsdoneinthe
performance of official functions will result in a charge or
financial liability against the government. (Department of
Health vs. Pharmawealth, Inc.,518SCRA240[2007])
o0o
G.R.No.165060.November27,2008.*
58
58
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
anoutlawandslainatsight,orignoredwhereverandwheneverit
exhibitsitshead.
Family Law; Family Home; The family home is a real right
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionsofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
59
VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008
59
in1994.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City,
Branch 272, found petitioner liable to respondent in the
amount of P404,836.50 with interest at 12% per annum
reckonedfromJanuary9,1995untilfullpayment.3
Petitioner appealed4 to the Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the trial courts decision in toto.5 Petitioner filed
before this Court a petition for review on certiorari, but it
was dismissed in a Resolution dated February 18, 2002.6
TheJudgmentbecamefinalandexecutoryonMay21,2002.
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 64; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesRubenT.ReyesandNoelG.Tijam.
2Id.,atpp.7273.
3Id.,atpp.2933;pennedbyJudgeReubenR.DelaCruz.
4DocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.56952.
5Rollo,pp.3438;pennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoV.Cosicoand
concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Alicia L.
Santos.
6Id.,atpp.13,51;docketedasG.R.No.150720.
60
60
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
OnFebruary17,2003,respondentmovedforissuanceof
awritofexecution,7whichwasopposedbypetitioner.8Inan
Order dated July 16, 2003,9 the trial court granted the
motion,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads,asfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for issuance of
writofexecutionisherebygranted.Letawritofexecutionbeissued
commandingtheSheriffofthisCourttoexecutethedecisiondated
December18,1996.
SOORDERED.10
AwritofexecutionwasissuedonAugust20,200311and
enforced on August 21, 2003. On August 29, 2003, certain
personal properties subject of the writ of execution were
auctioned off. Thereafter, a real property located at
Marikina City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT)No.N105280wassoldonOctober28,2003bywayof
public auction to fully satisfy the judgment credit.
Respondent emerged as the winning bidder and a
CertificateofSale12datedNovember6,2003wasissuedin
hisfavor.
OnNovember5,2003,petitionerfiledanoriginalpetition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the
sheriffslevyandsaleoftheabovementionedpersonaland
real properties. Petitioner claimed that the personal
propertiesdidnotbelongtohimbuttohischildren;andthat
the real property covered by TCT No. N105280 was his
familyhomethusexemptfromexecution.
OnNovember17,2003,theCourtofAppealsissuedthe
assailed Resolution dismissing the petition for failure of
petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial
courts
_______________
7Id.,atpp.5052.
8Id.,atpp.5355.
9Id.,atp.56.
10Id.
11Id.,atpp.5758.
12Id.,atpp.6162.
61
VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008
61
Petitionerarguesthatthetrialcourtsherifferroneously
attached, levied and sold on execution the real property
covered by TCT No. N105280 because the same is his
familyhome;thattheexecutionsalewasirregularbecause
it was conducted without complying with the notice and
posting of requirements; and that the personal and real
properties were sold for inadequate prices as to shock the
conscience. The real property was allegedly worth P8
millionbutwassoldforonlyP848,448.64.
Petitioner also argues that the appellate court gravely
abuseditsdiscretionindismissingthepetitionbasedpurely
on technical grounds, i.e., his failure to file a motion for
reconsiderationofthetrialcourtsordergrantingexecution,
and his failure to indicate in his petition for certiorari the
timelinessoffilingthesamewiththeCourtofAppeals.
Respondent, on the other hand, argues that petitioners
alleged family home has not been shown to have been
judiciallyorextrajudiciallyconstituted,obviouslyreferring
totheprovi
62
62
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008
63
The above Order did not resolve nor take into account
petitionersallegationsinhisOpposition,whicharematerial
andrelevantintheresolutionofthemotionforissuanceofa
writofexecution.Thisisseriouserroronthepartofthetrial
court.Itshouldhavemadeanearnestdeterminationofthe
truthtopetitionersclaimthatthehouseandlotinwhichhe
and his children resided was their duly constituted family
home.Sinceitdidnot,itsJuly16,2003Orderisthusnull
andvoid.Whereajudgmentorjudicialorderisvoiditmay
be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an
outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
wheneveritexhibitsitshead.14
The family home is a real right which is gratuitous,
inalienableandfreefromattachment,constitutedoverthe
dwelling place and the land on which it is situated, which
confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such
properties,whichmustremainwiththepersonconstituting
it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in
certainspecialcases.15
Upon being apprised that the property subject of
executionallegedlyconstitutespetitionersfamilyhome,the
trialcourtshouldhaveobservedthefollowingprocedure:
_______________
13Id.,atp.56.
14Abbain v. Chua,No.L24241,February26,1968,22SCRA748.
15 Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, March 9, 1999,
304SCRA308.
64
64
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
1.Determineifpetitionersobligationtorespondentfallsunder
eitheroftheexceptionsunderArticle15516 oftheFamilyCode;
2.Makeaninquiryintotheveracityofpetitionersclaimthatthe
propertywashisfamilyhome;17 conductanocularinspectionofthe
premises; an examination of the title; an interview of members of
thecommunitywheretheallegedfamilyhomeislocated,inorderto
determine if petitioner actually resided within the premises of the
claimed family home; order a submission of photographs of the
premises,depositions,and/oraffidavitsofproperindividuals/parties;
or a solemn examination of the petitioner, his children and other
wit
_______________
16FamilyCode.
Art.155.The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced
saleorattachmentexcept:
(1)Fornonpaymentoftaxes;
(2)Fordebtsincurredpriortotheconstitutionofthefamilyhome;
(3)Fordebtssecuredbymortgagesonthepremisesbeforeorafter
suchconstitution;and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders,
materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished
materialfortheconstructionofthebuilding.
17FamilyCode.
Art.152.Thefamilyhome,constitutedjointlybythehusbandand
the wife or by an unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling house
wheretheyandtheirfamilyreside,andthelandonwhichitissituated.
Art.153.Thefamilyhomeisdeemedconstitutedonahouseandlot
fromthetimeitisoccupiedasafamilyresidence.Fromthetimeofits
constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from
execution,forcedsaleorattachmentexceptashereinafterprovidedand
totheextentofthevalueallowedbylaw.
Art.162.TheprovisionsinthisChaptershallalsogovernexisting
familyresidencesinsofarassaidprovisionsareapplicable.
65
VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008
65
66
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
16022 oftheFamilyCode.
Thefamilyhomeisthedwellingplaceofapersonandhis
family,asacredsymboloffamilyloveandrepositoryofcher
_______________
Art.157. The actual value of the family home shall not
exceed, at the time of its constitution, the amount of Three
hundred thousand pesos in urban areas, and Two hundred
thousandpesosinruralareas,orsuchamountsasmayhereafter
befixedbylaw.
In any event, if the value of the currency changes after the
adoption of this Code, the value most favorable for the
constitutionofafamilyhomeshallbethebasisofevaluation.
For purposes of this Article, urban areas are deemed to
include chartered cities and municipalities whose annual income
at least equals that legally required for chartered cities. All
othersaredeemedtoberuralareas.
22FamilyCode.
Art.160. When a creditor whose claim is not among those
mentionedinArticle155obtainsajudgmentinhisfavor,andhe
has reasonable grounds to believe that the family home is
actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article
157,hemayapplytothecourtwhichrenderedthejudgmentfor
an order directing the sale of the property under execution. The
court shall so order if it finds that the actual value of the family
home exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law as of the
timeofitsconstitution.Iftheincreasedactualvalueexceedsthe
maximum allowed in Article 157 and results from subsequent
voluntary improvements introduced by the person or persons
constituting the family home, by the owner or owners of the
property, or by any of the beneficiaries, the same rule and
procedureshallapply.
At the execution sale, no bid below the value allowed for a
family home shall be considered. The proceeds shall be applied
first to the amount mentioned in Article 157, and then to the
liabilities under the judgment and the costs. The excess, if any,
shallbedeliveredtothejudgmentdebtor.
67
VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008
67
68
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
Respondentmovedforissuanceofawritofexecutionon
February 17, 2003 while petitioner filed his opposition on
June23,2003.ThetrialcourtgrantedthemotiononJuly
16,2003,andthewritofexecutionwasissuedonAugust20,
2003. Clearly, the trial court had enough time to conduct
the crucial inquiry that would have spared petitioner the
trouble of having to seek relief all the way to this Court.
Indeed,thetrialcourtsinactiononpetitionersplearesulted
in serious injustice to the latter, not to mention that its
failure to conduct an inquiry based on the latters claim
borderedongrossignoranceofthelaw.
_______________
(e)Household
furniture
and
utensils
necessary
for
housekeeping,andusedforthatpurposebythejudgmentobligor
and his family, such as the judgment obligor may select, of a
valuenotexceedingonehundredthousandpesos;
(f)Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four
months;
(g)The professional libraries and equipment of judges,
lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors,
clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding
threehundredthousandpesosinvalue;
(h)One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total
value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman and
bythelawfuluseofwhichheearnshislivelihood;
(i)So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the
judgmentobligorofhispersonalserviceswithinthefourmonths
precedingthelevyasarenecessaryforthesupportofhisfamily;
(j)Letteredgravestones;
(k)Monies benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in
anymannergrowingoutofanylifeinsurance;
(l)The right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government;
(m)Propertiesspeciallyexemptbylaw.
But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall
be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its
priceoruponajudgmentofforeclosureofamortgagethereon.
69
VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008
69
1991,203SCRA474.
70
70
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
toabode,allproceduralinfirmitiesoccasioneduponthiscase
must take a back seat to the substantive questions which
deservetobeansweredinfull.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
GRANTED. The November 17, 2003 and May 7, 2004
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
80315areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheJuly16,2003
OrderoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMarikinaCity,Branch
272inCivilCaseNo.95110MK,aswellasthewritorwrits
of execution thus issued in said case, are hereby
DECLARED VOID, and all acts proceeding therefrom and
any title obtained by virtue thereof are likewise
DECLAREDVOID.
The trial court is hereby DIRECTED (1) to conduct a
solemninquiryintothenatureoftherealpropertycovered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N105280, with a view
toward determining whether the same is petitioner Albino
Josefsfamilyhome,andifso,applythepertinentprovisions
oftheFamilyCodeandRule39oftheRulesofCourt;and
(2) to conduct an inquiry into the ownership of all other
properties that were levied upon and sold, with the aim of
determining as well whether these properties are exempt
fromexecutionunderexistinglaw.
RespondentOtelioSantosisherebyDIRECTEDtohold
the abovementioned real and personal properties, or the
proceeds thereof, in trust to await the outcome of the trial
courtsinquiry.
Finally, the trial court is DIRECTED to resolve, with
utmostdispatch,CivilCaseNo.95110MKwithinsixty(60)
daysfromreceiptofacopyofthisDecision.
SOORDERED.
AustriaMartinez, Tinga,** ChicoNazario andNachura,
JJ., concur.
_______________
** In lieu of Associate Justice Teresita J. LeonardoDe Castro, per
SpecialOrderNo.539datedNovember14,2008.