Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Ramos vs. Pangilinan, 625 SCRA 181, July 20, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Edgar Joshua Timbang
    The Supreme Court ruled that the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid. For a family home constituted before August 3, 1988, the date the Family Code took effect, it must have been constituted judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code to be exempt from execution. The petitioners failed to prove the Pandacan property was constituted as their family home in this manner. For homes constituted after August 3, 1988, no such constitution is required and exemption is automatic if a beneficiary resides there, but several other requirements must still be met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Ramos vs. Pangilinan, 625 SCRA 181, July 20, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Edgar Joshua Timbang
    88 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid. For a family home constituted before August 3, 1988, the date the Family Code took effect, it must have been constituted judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code to be exempt from execution. The petitioners failed to prove the Pandacan property was constituted as their family home in this manner. For homes constituted after August 3, 1988, no such constitution is required and exemption is automatic if a beneficiary resides there, but several other requirements must still be met.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid. For a family home constituted before August 3, 1988, the date the Family Code took effect, it must have been constituted judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code to be exempt from execution. The petitioners failed to prove the Pandacan property was constituted as their family home in this manner. For homes constituted after August 3, 1988, no such constitution is required and exemption is automatic if a beneficiary resides there, but several other requirements must still be met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    88 views2 pages

    Ramos vs. Pangilinan, 625 SCRA 181, July 20, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Edgar Joshua Timbang
    The Supreme Court ruled that the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid. For a family home constituted before August 3, 1988, the date the Family Code took effect, it must have been constituted judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code to be exempt from execution. The petitioners failed to prove the Pandacan property was constituted as their family home in this manner. For homes constituted after August 3, 1988, no such constitution is required and exemption is automatic if a beneficiary resides there, but several other requirements must still be met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    You are on page 1of 2

    Ramos vs.

    Pangilinan, 625 SCRA 181, July 20, 2010


    CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

    The general rule is that the family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable
    and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which
    it is situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such
    properties, which must remain with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot
    be seized by creditors except in certain special cases.

    LEGAL DOCTRINE: Family home is exempt from execution. However, we must take
    note what law will apply when the family home was constituted. If it was constituted
    before the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988), the Civil Code will govern.
    Under the Civil Code, the family home must be constituted either judicially or extra-
    judicially for it to be exempted from execution. If the family home was constituted after
    the effectivity of the Family Code, it is automatically exempted by operation of law.
    FACTS:

     Respondents filed in 2003 a complaint for illegal dismissal against E.M. Ramos
    Electric, Inc., a company owned by Ernesto M. Ramos (Ramos), the patriarch of
    herein petitioners. By Decision of April 15, 2005, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor
    of respondents and ordered Ramos and the company to pay the aggregate
    amount of P1,661,490.30 representing their back wages, separation pay, 13th
    month pay & service incentive leave pay.

     The Decision having become final and executory and no settlement having been
    forged by the parties, the Labor Arbiter issued on September 8, 2005 a writ of
    execution which the Deputy Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission
    (NLRC) implemented by levying a property in Ramos’ name situated in
    Pandacan, Manila (Pandacan property).

     Alleging that the Pandacan property was the family home, hence, exempt from
    execution to satisfy the judgment award, Ramos and the company moved to
    quash the writ of execution.

     Respondents, however, averred that the Pandacan property is not the Ramos
    family home, as it has another in Antipolo, and the Pandacan property in fact
    served as the company’s business address as borne by the company’s letterhead.
    Respondents added that, assuming that the Pandacan property was indeed the
    family home, only the value equivalent to P300,000 was exempt from execution.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ decision holding that the levy upon the
    Pandacan property was valid.
    HELD/RULING:

     YES. For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made
    as to what law applies based on when it was constituted and what requirements
    must be complied with by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such
    privilege. Hence, two sets of rules are applicable.

     If the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or
    before August 3, 1988, then it must have been constituted either judicially or
    extrajudicially as provided under Articles 225, 229-231 and 233 of the Civil Code.
    Failure to comply with either one of these two modes of constitution will bar a
    judgment debtor from availing of the privilege.

     On the other hand, for family homes constructed after the effectivity of the
    Family Code on August 3, 1988, there is no need to constitute extrajudicially or
    judicially, and the exemption is effective from the time it was constituted and
    lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries under Art. 154 actually resides therein.

     Moreover, the family home should belong to the absolute community or conjugal
    partnership, or if exclusively by one spouse, its constitution must have been with
    consent of the other, and its value must not exceed certain amounts depending
    upon the area where it is located. Further, the debts incurred for which the
    exemption does not apply as provided under Art. 155 for which the family home
    is made answerable must have been incurred after August 3, 1988.

     In the present case, since petitioners claim that the family home was constituted
    prior to August 3, 1988, or as early as 1944, they must comply with the procedure
    mandated by the Civil Code. There being absolutely no proof that the Pandacan
    property was judicially or extrajudicially constituted as the Ramos’ family home,
    the law’s protective mantle cannot be availed of by petitioners.

    You might also like