Valdez vs QC RTC

FACTS: Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married on 05 January 1971. e!otten durin!
t"e marria!e were #i$e %"ildren. &n a 'etition( dated )) June 199)( Valdes sou!"t t"e de%laration o#
nullity o# t"e marria!e 'ursuant to Arti%le *+ o# t"e Family Code ,do%-eted Ci$il Case .o. /09)0
1)5*9( 1e!ional Trial Court o# /uezon City( ran%" 10)2. A#ter "earin! t"e 'arties #ollowin! t"e
3oinder o# issues( t"e trial %ourt( 1in its de%ision o# )9 July 1994( !ranted t"e 'etition.
Consuelo Gomez sou!"t a %lari#i%ation o# t"at 'ortion o# t"e de%ision dire%tin! %om'lian%e wit"
Arti%les 50( 51 and 5) o# t"e Family Code. S"e asserted t"at t"e Family Code %ontained no
'ro$isions on t"e 'ro%edure #or t"e li5uidation o# %ommon 'ro'erty in 6unions wit"out marria!e.6
7arent"eti%ally( durin! t"e "earin! on t"e motion( t"e %"ildren #iled a 3oint a##ida$it e8'ressin!
t"eir desire to remain wit" t"eir #at"er( Antonio Valdes( "erein 'etitioner.
&SS9:: ;<. Art 147 o# t"e Family Code a''lies to %ases w"ere t"e 'arties are 'sy%"olo!i%ally
in%a'a%itated.
=:>? A.? 1AT&<: 6A1T. 147. ;"en a man and a woman w"o are %a'a%itated to marry ea%"
ot"er( li$e e8%lusi$ely wit" ea%" ot"er as "us@and and wi#e wit"out t"e @ene#it o# marria!e or
under a $oid marria!e( t"eir wa!es and salaries s"al @e owned @y t"em in e5ual s"ares and t"e
'ro'erty a%5uired @y @ot" o# t"em t"rou!" t"eir wor- or industry s"al @e !o$erned @y t"e rules on
%oowners"i'.
6&n t"e a@sen%e o# 'roo# to t"e %ontrary( 'ro'erties a%5uired w"ile t"ey li$ed to!et"er s"al @e
'resumed to "a$e @een o@tained @y t"eir 3oint e##orts( wor- or industry( and s"al @e owned @y
t"em in e5ual s"ares. For 'ur'oses o# t"is Arti%le( a 'arty w"o did not 'arti%i'ate in t"e a%5uisition
@y t"e ot"er 'arty o# any 'ro'erty s"al @e deemed to "a$e %ontri@uted 3ointly in t"e a%5uisition
t"ereo# i# t"e #ormerAs e##orts %onsisted in t"e %are and maintenan%e o# t"e #amily and o# t"e
"ouse"old.
6.eit"er 'arty %an en%um@er or dis'ose @y a%ts inter $i$os o# "is or "er s"are in t"e 'ro'erty
a%5uired durin! %o"a@itation and owned in %ommon( wit"out t"e %onsent o# t"e ot"er( until a#ter
t"e termination o# t"eir %o"a@itation.
6;"en only one o# t"e 'arties to a $oid marria!e is in !ood #ait"( t"e s"are o# t"e 'arty in @ad
#ait" in t"e %o0owners"i' s"al @e #or#eited in #a$or o# t"eir %ommon %"ildren. &n %ase o# de#ault o#
or wai$er @y any or al o# t"e %ommon %"ildren or t"eir des%endants( ea%" $a%ant s"are s"al @elon!
to t"e res'e%ti$e sur$i$in! des%endants. &n t"e a@sen%e o# des%endants( su%" s"are s"al @elon! to
t"e inno%ent 'arty. &n al %ases( t"e #or#eiture s"al ta-e 'la%e u'on termination o# t"e %o"a@itation.6
T"is 'e%uliar -ind o# %o0owners"i' a''lies w"en a man and a woman( su##erin! no le!al
im'ediment to marry ea%" ot"er( so e8%lusi$ely li$e to!et"er as "us@and and wi#e under a $oid
marria!e or wit"out t"e @ene#it o# marria!e. T"e term 6%a'a%itated6 in t"e 'ro$ision ,in t"e #irst
'ara!ra'" o# t"e law2 re#ers to t"e le!al %a'a%ity o# a 'arty to %ontra%t marria!e( i.e.( any 6male or
#emale o# t"e a!e o# ei!"teen years or u'wards not under any o# t"e im'ediments mentioned in Art
*7 and *B o# t"e Ci$il Code.
Uy vs CA
FACTS: 7ri$ate res'ondent .ati$idad Calaunan09y was t"e %ommon0law wi#e o# t"e late Cenilo
. 9y( Sr.( #or a@out t"irty0si8 ,*+2 years. T"eir union @ore #our %"ildren Celito( Jr.( .ilda(
Cel$in and Cerlito all surnamed 9y. <n *1 <%to@er 1990( soon a#ter t"e deat" o# Cenilo 9y(
Sr.( "erein 'etitioners Ts"iate 9y and 1amon 9y initiated @e#ore t"e 1e!ional Trial Court ,1TC2(
ran%" +5( Ca-ati( Cetro Canila( S'e%ial 7ro%eedin!s .o. C0)+0+( entitled 6&n t"e Catter o# t"e
7etition #or >etters o# Administration o# t"e :state o# Cenilo . 9y( Sr.6 <n )B Fe@ruary 1991(
'ri$ate res'ondent #iled a motion to "old t"e s'e%ial 'ro%eedin!s in a@eyan%e. T"e day @e#ore( or
on )7 Fe@ruary 1991( 'ri$ate res'ondent #iled wit" t"e 1TC( ran%" 5B( Ca-ati( Ci$il Case .o.
91057* #or 67artition o# 7ro'erties 9nder Co0owners"i'(6 a!ainst t"e :state o# Cenilo 9y( Sr.
,su''osedly re'resented @y t"eir #our %"ildren2.
<n )4 Cay 1991( 'etitioner Ts"iate 9y #iled an omni@us motion( alle!in! t"at @y $irtue o# a =on!
Don! marria!e( s"e was t"e sur$i$in! le!al s'ouse o# Cenilo Sr. S"e 'rayed t"at s"e and "er son
1amon 9y @e allowed to inter$ene in t"e %i$il %ase( su@mittin! at t"e same time t"eir answer in
inter$ention. T"e inter$enors %ontended( amon! ot"er t"in!s( t"at t"e 3ud!ment u'on t"e
%om'romise was a 'atent nullity. <n 10 June 1991( t"e trial %ourt issued an order allowin! t"e
inter$ention and settin! aside t"e 6%om'romise 3ud!ment.6 7ri$ate res'ondent #iled a motion #or
re%onsiderationE it was denied @y t"e trial %ourt its order o# 0B July 1991.
&SS9:: ;<.
Ferrer vs Spouses Ferrer
FACTS: 7etitioner alle!ed t"at s"e is t"e widow o# Al#redo Ferrer ,Al#redo2( a "al#0@rot"er o#
res'ondents Canuel C. Ferrer ,Canuel2 and &smael C. Ferrer ,&smael2. e#ore "er marria!e to
Al#redo( t"e latter a%5uired a 'ie%e o# lot( %o$ered @y Trans#er Certi#i%ate o# Title ,TCT2 .o.
+79)7. 4 =e a''lied #or a loan wit" t"e So%ial Se%urity System ,SSS2 to @uild im'ro$ements
t"ereon( in%ludin! a residential "ouse and a two0door a'artment @uildin!. =owe$er( it was durin!
t"eir marria!e t"at 'ayment o# t"e loan was made usin! t"e %ou'leAs %on3u!al #unds. From t"eir
%on3u!al #unds( 'etitioner 'osited( t"ey %onstru%ted a ware"ouse on t"e lot. C
Coreo$er( 'etitioner a$erred t"at res'ondent Canuel o%%u'ied one door o# t"e a'artment @uildin!(
as well as t"e ware"ouseE "owe$er( in Se'tem@er 1991( "e sto''ed 'ayin! rentals t"ereon( alle!in!
t"at "e "ad a%5uired owners"i' o$er t"e 'ro'erty @y $irtue o# a ?eed o# Sale e8e%uted @y Al#redo
in #a$or o# res'ondents( Canuel and &smael and t"eir s'ouses. TCT .o. +79)7 was %an%elled( and
TCT. .o. )7)B was issued and re!istered in t"e names o# res'ondents. &t is 'etitionerAs %ontention
t"at on ) <%to@er 19B9( w"en "er "us@and was already @edridden( res'ondents &smael and Flora
Ferrer made "im si!n a do%ument( 'ur'orted to @e "is last will and testament. T"e do%ument(
"owe$er( was a ?eed o# Sale %o$erin! Al#redoAs lot and t"e im'ro$ements t"ereon.
&SS9:: ;<. 'etitioner %an %laim on t"e im'ro$ements made to "er "us@ands 'ro'erty.
=:>?: 7etitionerAs Com'laint #ailed to state a %ause o# a%tion a!ainst t"e res'ondents( and #or t"is
reason t"e Court o# A''eals did not err in dismissin! t"e same.
7etitioner was not a@le to s"ow t"at t"ere is an o@li!ation on t"e 'art o# t"e res'ondents to res'e%t
or not to $iolate "er ri!"t. ;"ile we %ould %on%ede t"at Ci$il Case .o. +1*)7 made a re#eren%e to
t"e ri!"t o# t"e s'ouse as %ontem'lated in Arti%le 1)0 o# t"e Family Code to @e reim@ursed #or t"e
%ost o# t"e im'ro$ements( t"e o@li!ation to reim@urse rests on t"e s'ouse u'on w"om owners"i'
o# t"e entire 'ro'erty is $ested. T"ere is no o@li!ation on t"e 'art o# t"e 'ur%"aser o# t"e 'ro'erty(
in %ase t"e 'ro'erty is sold @y t"e owner0s'ouse.
Jader vs Camaisa
FACTS:Petitioner herein responded to an advertisement in the newspaper or the sale o a
ten!door apartment owned "y herein respondents spouses# Ater the pur$hase pri$e and the
term o payments were a%reed upon "y the petitioner and the respondent hus"and& a
$ontra$t to sell was prepared# The hus"and si%ned the $ontra$t& "ut unortunately the wie
$han%ed her mind as she did not a%ree with the term o payments "y the petitioner# 'en$e&
petitioner herein iled a $omplaint or spe$ii$ perorman$e a%ainst the spouses to $ompel the
wie to si%n the $ontra$t to sell# The respondent wie iled a motion or summary (ud%ment#
The trial $ourt rendered a summary (ud%ment dismissin% the $omplaint# Petitioner elevated
the $ase to the Court o Appeals# The Court o Appeals airmed the dismissal o the $ase "y
the trial $ourt#
)SSU*: +hether or not the hus"and may validly dispose a $on(u%al property without the
wie,s written $onsent#
'*-.: The Supreme Court airmed the de$ision o the Court o Appeals# The Court a%reed
with the trial $ourt that summary (ud%ment was appli$a"le to this $ase as there was no
%enuine $ontroversy as to the a$ts involved herein# A$$ordin% to the Court& the properties
su"(e$t o the $ontra$t in this $ase were $on(u%al/ hen$e& or the $ontra$t to sell to "e
ee$tive& the $onsent o "oth the hus"and and wie must $on$ur# )n the a"sen$e o proo that
the wie was in$apa$itated to %ive her $onsent to the $ontra$t& a $ourt authorization $annot
"e sou%ht in this $ase#
Versoza vs Versoza
FACTS:# 0n 1ar$h 2& 3452& a veriied $omplaint& later amended& or P3&677#77 monthly
support& support in arrears& and dama%es& and $ustody o $hildren& with a petition or
support pendente lite was lod%ed a%ainst Jose 1a# Versoza "y his wie& 1ar%aret Ann
+ainri%ht Versoza& and their three minor $hildren& Jose 1a# Versoza& Jr#& Charles John
Versoza and Vir%inia Feli$e Versoza# Reasons %iven are that deendant has a"andoned
plaintis without providin% or their support and maintains illi$it relations with another
woman#
.eendant,s answer atta$8ed the $omplaint on the $laim that it is premature and9or that it
states no $ause o a$tion# :e$ause& the $omplaint whi$h involves mem"ers o the same amily
does not alle%e earnest eorts toward a $ompromise "eore the $omplaint was iled as set
orth in the statute mentioned at the start o this opinion# Then ollowed deendant,s motion
or preliminary hearin% on (urisdi$tion# .eendant there ar%ued that $omplian$e with
Arti$le ;;; o the Civil Code aoresaid was a $ondition pre$edent and should have "een
alle%ed in the $omplaint#
0n Fe"ruary ;;& 3456& ollowin% appropriate pro$eedin%s& the lower $ourt $ame out with its
irst appealed order# )t there resolved to dismiss the $omplaint without pre(udi$e& upon the
%round that there was no showin% that eorts have "een e<erted to settle the $ase ami$a"ly
"eore suit was started# Plaintis moved to re$onsider# Anne<ed to its motion was an
aidavit o their $ounsel to the ee$t that "eore $ourt a$tion was ta8en eorts were made to
settle the $ase ami$a"ly& "ut whi$h were ruitless#
0n 1ar$h =7&3456& the lower $ourt "rushed aside this motion#
)SSU*: +0> $omplaint is valid without irst pursuin% an ami$a"le settlement on the
support o the $hildren#
'*-.: The de$ision o the lower $ourt was set aside and the $ase was remanded to the $ourt
o irst instan$e#
The te<t o Arti$le ;;; o the Civil Code is this: ?>o suit shall "e iled or maintained "etween
mem"ers o the same amily unless it should appear that earnest eorts toward a
$ompromise have "een made& "ut that the same have ailed& su"(e$t to the limitations in
arti$le ;7=6# = The re@uirement in Arti$le ;;; has "een %iven more teeth "y Se$tion 3A(B&
Rule 35 o the Rules o Court& whi$h states as %round or a motion to dismiss that ?AtBhe suit
is "etween mem"ers o the same amily and no earnest eorts towards a $ompromise have
"een made#?
The $umulative impa$t o the statute and the rule (ust adverted to is that earnest eorts to
rea$h a $ompromise and ailure thereo must ordinarily "e alle%ed in the $omplaint#
0la$o vs Co$ho $hit
FACTS: This involves hal!sisters ea$h $laimin% ownership over a par$el o land# +hile
petitioner *milia 0,-a$o asserts that she merely let the $ertii$ate o title $overin% the
property with private respondent 0 -ay Cia or sae8eepin%& the latter who is the ormer,s
older sister insists that the title was in her possession "e$ause she and her hus"and "ou%ht
the property rom their $on(u%al unds#The trial $ourt de$lared that there was no trust
relation o any sort "etween the sisters# The Court o Appeals ruled otherwise#
)SSU:: +0> a resultin% trust was intended "y them in the a$@uisition o the property#
'*-.: T"e .e$ision o the Court o Appeals o 4 April 34D3& whi$h reversed the trial $ourt&
is AFF)R1*.#
Admittedly& the present a$tion is "etween mem"ers o the same amily sin$e petitioner
*milia 0,-a$o and respondent 0 -ay Cia are halsisters# Conse@uently& there should "e an
averment in the $omplaint that earnest eorts toward a $ompromise have "een made&
pursuant to Art# ;;; o the >ew Civil Code& 5 or a motion to dismiss $ould have "een iled
under Se$# 3& par# A(B& Rule 35& o the Rules o Court# E For& it is well!settled that the attempt
to $ompromise as well as the ina"ility to su$$eed is a $ondition pre$edent to the ilin% o a
suit "etween mem"ers o the same amily# D 'en$e& the dee$t in the $omplaint is assaila"le
at any sta%e o the pro$eedin%s& even on appeal& or la$8 o $ause o a$tion#
Spouses Au%usto vs RTC )loilo
FACTS: Petitioner spouses herein iled a $omplaint or dama%es a%ainst herein private
respondents# )n their $omplaint& petitioners alle%ed that "ein% the owners o a par$el o land
they were deprived o the in$ome thererom as a result o the ilin% o the land re%istration
$ase "y the private respondents and withheld in "ad aith possession o the land rom
petitioners# Private respondents& however& denied the alle%ations and $laimed that possession
o the property in @uestion had already "een transerred to petitioners# Petitioners moved
or a (ud%ment on the pleadin%s on the %round that private respondents, answer did not
tender an issue or that it otherwise admitted the material alle%ations o the $omplaint# The
trial $ourt denied the motion# At the same time& the $ourt dismissed the $ase on the %round
that the $omplaint was not veriied as re@uired "y Art# 363 o the Family Code and&
thereore& it did not "elieve that earnest eorts had "een made to arrive at a $ompromise#
Petitioners moved or re$onsideration o the order o dismissal& "ut their motion was denied#
'en$e this petition#
)SSU*: +0> the $omplaint was not veriied as re@uired "y Art# 363 o the Family Code#
'*-.: The Supreme Court ruled that the in$lusion o private respondent Teodora Ayson as
deendant and petitioner 1aria 'ontiveros as plainti too8 the $ase out o the am"it o Art#
363 o the Family Code# Under this provision& the phrase ?mem"ers o the same amily?
reers to hus"and and wie& parents and $hildren& as$endants and des$endants& and "rothers
and sisters& whether ull or hal!"lood# Private respondent Ayson& "ein% the spouse o
respondent 'ontiveros& and petitioner 1aria 'ontiveros& "ein% the spouse o petitioner
Au%usto 'ontiveros& are $onsidered stran%ers to the 'ontiveros amily& or purposes o Art#
363# The a"sen$e o verii$ation re@uired in Art# 363 do not ae$t the (urisdi$tion o the
$ourt over the su"(e$t matter o the $omplaint# The verii$ation is merely a ormal
re@uirement intended to se$ure an assuran$e that matters whi$h are alle%ed are true and
$orre$t# 'en$e& this petition was %ranted and the $ase was remanded to the trial $ourt or
urther pro$eedin%s#
'iyas Savin%s vs Jud%e A$una
FACTS: 0n >ovem"er ;2& ;777& Al"erto 1oreno Aprivate respondentB iled a $omplaint
a%ainst 'iyas Savin%s and -oan :an8& )n$# ApetitionerB& his wie Remedios& the spouses
Felipe and 1aria 0we and the Re%ister o .eeds o Caloo$an City or $an$ellation o
mort%a%e $ontendin% that he did not se$ure any loan rom petitioner& nor did he si%n or
e<e$ute any $ontra$t o mort%a%e in its avor/ that his wie& a$tin% in $onspira$y with 'iyas
and the spouses 0we& who were the ones that "eneited rom the loan& made it appear that he
si%ned the $ontra$t o mort%a%e/ that he $ould not have e<e$uted the said $ontra$t "e$ause
he was then wor8in% a"road#
0n 1ay 3E& ;773& petitioner iled a 1otion to .ismiss on the %round that private respondent
ailed to $omply with Arti$le 363 o the Family Code wherein it is provided that no suit
"etween mem"ers o the same amily shall prosper unless it should appear rom the veriied
$omplaint or petition that earnest eorts toward a $ompromise have "een made& "ut that the
same have ailed# Petitioner $ontends that sin$e the $omplaint does not $ontain any a$t or
averment that earnest eorts toward a $ompromise had "een made prior to its institution&
then the $omplaint should "e dismissed or la$8 o $ause o a$tion#
)SSU*: +0> the $omplaint should "e dismissed or la$8 o $ause o a$tion#
'*-.: The Court has ruled that the re@uirement under Arti$le 363 o the Family Code is
appli$a"le only in $ases whi$h are e<$lusively "etween or amon% mem"ers o the same
amily& it ne$essarily ollows that the same may "e invo8ed only "y a party who is a mem"er
o that same amily# +'*R*F0R*& the instant Petition or Certiorari is .)S1)SS*. or
la$8 o merit#
1ode@uilo vs :reva
FACTS: 0n January ;4& 34DD& a (ud%ment was rendered "y the Court o Appeals in CA!F#R#
CV >o# 74;3D entitled ?Fran$is$o Salinas& et al# vs# Jose 1ode@uillo& et al#&? the dispositive
part o whi$h read as ollows:
?+'*R*F0R*& the de$ision under appeal should "e& as it is here"y& reversed and set aside#
Jud%ment is here"y rendered indin% the deendants!appelees Jose 1ode@uilo and :enito
1alu"ay (ointly and severaly lia"le to plaintis!appelants as herein "elow set orth#
A$$ordin%ly& deendants!appelees are ordered to pay (ointly and severaly to:
3# Plaintis appelants& the Salinas spouses:
a# the amount o P=7&777#77 "y way o $ompensation or the death o their son Audie Salinas/
"# P37&777#77 or the loss o earnin%s "y reason o the death o said Audie Salinas/ $# the sum
o P6&777#77 as "urial e<penses o Audie Salinas/ and
d# the sum o P6&777#77 "y way o moral dama%es#
;# Plaintis!appelants Culan!Culan:
a# the sum o P6&777#77 or hospitalization e<penses o Renato Culan!Culan/ and
"# P6&777#77 or moral dama%es#
=# :oth plaintis!appelants Salinas and Culan!Culan& PE&777#77 or attorney,s ees and
liti%ation e<penses#
All $ounter$laims and other $laims are here"y dismissed#?
0n July E& 34DD& the sheri levied on a par$el o residential land lo$ated at Po"la$ion
1alala%& .avao del Sur $ontainin% an area o 577 s@uare meters with a mar8et value o
P=2&667#77 and assessed value o PE&6E7#77 per Ta< .e$laration >o# DE!777D!73=64&
re%istered in the name o Jose 1ode@uillo in the oi$e o the Provin$ial Assessor o .avao
del Sur/ and a par$el o a%ri$ultural land lo$ated at .ala%"on%& :ula$an& 1alala%& .avao del
Sur $ontainin% an area o = he$tares with a mar8et value o P;2&3=7#77 and assessed value o
P4&567#77 per Ta< .e$laration >o# DE!7D!73D2D re%istered in the name o Jose 1ode@uillo in
the oi$e o the Provin$ial Assessor o .avao del Sur#
A motion to @uash and9or to set aside levy o e<e$ution was iled "y deendant Jose
1ode@uillo alle%in% therein that the residential land lo$ated at Po"la$ion 1alala% is where
the amily home is "uilt sin$e 3454 prior to the $ommen$ement o this $ase and as su$h is
e<empt rom e<e$ution& or$ed sale or atta$hment under Arti$les 36; and 36= o the Family
Code e<$ept or lia"ilities mentioned in Arti$le 366 thereo/ and that the (ud%ment de"t
sou%ht to "e enor$ed a%ainst the amily home o deendant is not one o those enumerated
under Arti$le 366 o the Family Code#
)SSU*: +0> the petitioner is ri%ht in $ontention that their residen$e is a amily home and
thereore e<empt rom e<e$ution or the payment o o"li%ations in$urred "eore the
ee$tivity o the Family Code#
'*-.:
The $ontention o petitioner that it should "e $onsidered a amily home rom the time it was
o$$upied "y petitioner and his amily in 3454 is not well ta8en# Under Arti$le 35; o the
Family Code& it is provided that ?the provisions o this Chapter shall also %overn e<istin%
amily residen$es insoar as said provisions are appli$a"le#? )t does not mean that Arti$les
36; and 36= o said Code have a retroa$tive ee$t su$h that all e<istin% amily residen$es are
deemed to have "een $onstituted as amily homes at the time o their o$$upation prior to the
ee$tivity o the Family Code and are e<empt rom e<e$ution or the payment o o"li%ations
in$urred "eore the ee$tivity o the Family Code# Arti$le 35; simply means that all e<istin%
amily residen$es at the time o the ee$tivity o the Family Code& are $onsidered amily
homes and are prospe$tively entitled to the "eneits a$$orded to a amily home under the
Family Code# Arti$le 35; does not state that the provisions o Chapter ;& Title V have a
retroa$tive ee$t#
Taneo vs CA
FACTS: The two par$els o land owned "y Pa"lo Taneo lo$ated at :arrio )%pit& 0pol&
1isamis 0riental were levied to satisy the (ud%ment in Civil Case >o# 647 or re$overy o
property in avor o private respondent A"don Fili%# The su"(e$t properties were sold at
pu"li$ au$tion on Fe"ruary 3;& 3455 to the private respondent as the hi%hest "idder# Ater
Pa"lo Taneo ailed to redeem the said properties& a inal deed o $onveyan$e was e<e$uted on
Fe"ruary 4& 345D& in avor o the private respondent# 0n Fe"ruary 3;& 34EE& Pa"lo Taneo
died# And on >ovem"er 6& 34D6& the herein petitioners as le%al heirs o Pa"lo Taneo& iled an
a$tion to de$lare the deed o $onveyan$e void and to @uiet title over the land $laimin% that
one par$el o land had "een a$@uired throu%h ree patent under Commonwealth A$t >o# 323
and the other par$el o land is a amily home& hen$e& "oth par$els o land are inaliena"le and
not su"(e$t to any en$um"ran$e or the payment o de"t# Ater trial& the RTC dismissed the
$omplaint# 0n appeal& the Court o Appeals airmed in toto the de$ision o the trial $ourt#
)SSU*: +0> petitioner $an $laim said amily home#
'*-.:The petitioners are not the owners o the land and $annot $laim to "e su$h "y
invo8in% Commonwealth A$t >o# 323# The prohi"ition does not apply sin$e it is $lear rom
the re$ords that the (ud%ment de"t and the e<e$ution sale too8 pla$e prior to the approval o
the appli$ation or ree patent# Further& the appli$a"le law in the $ase at "ar is still the Civil
Code where re%istration o the de$laration o a amily home is a prere@uisite# The
instrument $onstitutin% the amily home was re%istered only on January ;2& 3455# The
money (ud%ment a%ainst Pa"lo Taneo was re%istered on January ;2& 3452# Thus& at that time
when the ?de"t? was in$urred& the amily home was not yet $onstituted or even re%istered#
Clearly& petitioners, alle%ed amily home& as $onstituted "y their ather& is not e<empt as it
alls under the e<$eption o Arti$le ;2= A;B#
Spouse de 1esa vs Spouses A$ero
FACTS: This involves a par$el o land situated at >o# = For"es Street& 1ount Carmel 'omes
Su"division& )"a& 1ey$auayan& :ula$an& whi$h was ormerly $overed "y Transer Certii$ate
o Title ATCTB >o# T!E5#E;6 A1B issued "y the Re%ister o .eeds o 1ey$auayan& :ula$an
and re%istered under Ara$eli,s name# The petitioners (ointly pur$hased the su"(e$t property
on April 3E& 34D2 while they were still merely $oha"itin% "eore their marria%e# A house was
later $onstru$ted on the su"(e$t property& whi$h the petitioners thereater o$$upied as their
amily home ater they %ot married sometime in January 34DE#
)SSU*: The threshold issues or resolution are the ollowin%: AaB whether the petitioners are
%uilty o orum!shoppin%/ and A"B whether the lower $ourts erred in reusin% to $an$el
Claudio,s Torrens title TCT >o# T!;;3E66 A1B over the su"(e$t property#
'*-.: Anent the se$ond issue& this Court inds that the CA did not err in dismissin% the
petitioners, $omplaint or nullii$ation o TCT >o# T!;;3E66 A1B# The su"(e$t property is a
amily home# The petitioners maintain that the su"(e$t property is a amily home and&
a$$ordin%ly& the sale thereo on e<e$ution was a nullity# )n Ramos v# Pan%ilinan& ;7 this
Court laid down the rules relative to e<emption o amily homes rom e<e$ution:
The ore%oin% rules on $onstitution o amily homes& or purposes o e<emption rom
e<e$ution& $ould "e summarized as ollows:
First& amily residen$es $onstru$ted "eore the ee$tivity o the Family Code or "eore
Au%ust =& 34DD must "e $onstituted as a amily home either (udi$ially or e<tra(udi$ially in
a$$ordan$e with the provisions o the Civil Code in order to "e e<empt rom e<e$ution/
Se$ond& amily residen$es $onstru$ted ater the ee$tivity o the Family Code on Au%ust =&
34DD are automati$ally deemed to "e amily homes and thus e<empt rom e<e$ution rom the
time it was $onstituted and lasts as lon% as any o its "enei$iaries a$tually resides therein/
Third& amily residen$es whi$h were not (udi$ially or e<tra(udi$ially $onstituted as a amily
home prior to the ee$tivity o the Family Code& "ut were e<istin% thereater& are $onsidered
as amily homes "y operation o law and are prospe$tively entitled to the "eneits a$$orded
to a amily home under the Family Code#
'ere& the su"(e$t property "e$ame a amily residen$e sometime in January 34DE# There was
no showin%& however& that the same was (udi$ially or e<tra(udi$ially $onstituted as a amily
home in a$$ordan$e with the provisions o the Civil Code#
A>F*-*S Vs 1AF-AGA A Paternity and FiliationB
FACTS: This is a petition or the settlement o the intestate estate o Fran$is$o An%eles&
thereat $ommen$ed "y the respondent Aleli ?Corazon? An%eles!1a%laya# The le%al dispute
"etween the parties started when& on 1ar$h ;6& 344D& in the Re%ional Trial Court ARTCB at
Caloo$an City& respondent iled a petition or letters o administration and her appointment
as administratri< o the intestate estate o Fran$is$o 1# An%eles AFran$is$o& hereinaterB#
Respondent alle%ed& amon% other thin%s& the ollowin%:
3# That Fran$is$o& a resident o E3 :# Serrano St#& Fra$e Par8& Caloo$an& died intestate on
January ;3& 344D in the City o 1anila& leavin% "ehind our A2B par$els o land and a
"uildin%& amon% other valua"le properties/
;# That there is a need to appoint an administrator o Fran$is$o,s estate/
=# That she ArespondentB is the sole le%itimate $hild o the de$eased and Fenoveva 1er$ado&
and& to%ether with petitioner& :elen S# An%eles& de$edent,s wie "y his se$ond marria%e& are
the survivin% heirs o the de$edent/ and
2# That she has all the @ualii$ations and none o the dis@ualii$ations re@uired o an
administrator# Petitioner opposed the "asi$ petition and prayed that she& instead o
respondent& "e made the administratri< o Fran$is$o,s estate#
)SSU*S:
'*-.: Finally& it should "e noted that on the matter o appointment o administrator o the
estate o the de$eased& the survivin% spouse is preerred over the ne<t o 8in o the de$edent#
=D +hen the law spea8s o ?ne<t o 8in?& the reeren$e is to those who are entitled& under the
statute o distri"ution& to the de$edent,s property/ =4 one whose relationship is su$h that he
is entitled to share in the estate as distri"uted& 27 or& in short& an heir# )n resolvin%& thereore&
the issue o whether an appli$ant or letters o administration is a ne<t o 8in or an heir o
the de$edent& the pro"ate $ourt peror$e has to determine and pass upon the issue o
iliation# A separate a$tion will only result in a multipli$ity o suits# Upon this $onsideration&
the trial $ourt a$ted within "ounds when it loo8ed into and pass upon the $laimed
relationship o respondent to the late Fran$is$o An%eles# +'*R*F0R*& the herein assailed
de$ision o the Court o Appeals is here"y R*V*RS*. and S*T AS).*& and the order o
the trial $ourt dismissin% Spe$ial Pro$eedin%s >o# C!;327 R*)>STAT*.#