Jose Modequillio vs. Hon. Augusto V. Breva
G.R. No. 86355. May 31, 1990.*
On January 1988, Court of Appeals rendered a final and executory judgment on a case arising from a vehicular accident finding the petitioner liable to damages.The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land and a parcel of agricultural land registered in his name.
A motion to quash was filed by Modequillo alleging therein that the residential land is a family home and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Articles 152 and 153 and that the judgment debt sought to be enforced against the family home of defendant is not one of those enumerated under Article 155 of the Family Code. As to the agricultural land although it is declared in the name of defendant it is alleged to be 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.
whether or not 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.
NO. While the property became a family home by operation of law only under Article 153 of the Family Code, the contention of petitioner that it should be considered a family home from the time it was occupied by petitioner and his family in 1969 is not well-taken. 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 does not fall under the exemptions from execution provided in 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.
While 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 under Article 153 of the Family Code. It is deemed constituted as a family home upon the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, 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 of the Family Code. Article 162 does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect.