XI.

THE FAMILY
A. Members of a Family
Nature and Scope of Family Relations
Art.149, FC: The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic
social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.
Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom,
practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or
given effect.
Art.150, FC: Family relations include those:
1) Between husband and wife;
2) Between parents and children;
3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.
Art. 151, FC: No suit between members of the same family shall
prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition
that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the
same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the
case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of
compromise under the Civil Code.
Sempio-Diy says:
Application of Art 150-151
1. Verified complaints or petition must show that efforts toward
a compromise have failed.
2. Petition or complaint is required to be verified as an
assurance of the truth that efforts toward a compromise have
been made, but have failed.
3. Reason for the rule is to avoid or diminish litigations among
members of the same family.
4. However, even if the required allegation is made but it appears
at the pre-trial that the same is not true, the case must be
dismissed.
MENDOZA v. CA, 19 SCRA 756 (1967)
Facts:

Luisa Mendoza (respondent in this case) brought a complaint

before the court. Husband claims, no compromise yet, so no
prosper.

Held:
The complaint involved a claim for future support, that under
Art. 2035 of the Civil Code, cannot be the subject of a valid
compromise, and is therefore outside the sphere of Art. 222.
The husband also argues regarding the validity of their
marriage. However, this also falls under Art. 2035 as not
being the subject of a valid compromise.
MENDEZ V BIONSON & EUGENIA (1977)
Facts
Zoila Mendez and Matilde Bionson with 10 others vs Gumapon and more
Bionsons for the partition of 2 parcels of land in Cebu.
Held
The parties are collateral relatives who are not brothers and sisters.
Only members of the same family are required to exert efforts to arrive
at a settlement before an action is instituted.
Guerrero v RTC, Ilocos Norte (1994)
Facts
Gaudencio Guerrero and Pedro Hernando are brothers-in-law, their
wives are half-sisters. They both claim ownership of a lot.
Held
- Brothers-in-law are NOT members of the same family as enumerated in
Art 151. No earnest efforts toward a compromise are needed.
Hontiveros v RTC, Iloilo City (1999)
Facts
Complaint against Gregorio Hontiveros and his wife, Teodora Ayson by
Augusto and Maria Hontiveros. Gregorio-Augusto brothers
Held
Whenever a stranger is a party to a case, Art 151 will NOT apply. The
inclusion of respondent Ayson and Maria Hontiveros is out of ambit of
said article because they do not refer to members of the same family
which refer to blood-relatives.
Support
Art. 194-208

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8972

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES TO SOLO
PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Solo Parents' Welfare
Act of 2000."
Section 4. Criteria for Support. - Any solo parent whose income in the
place of domicile falls below the poverty threshold as set by the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and subject to the
assessment of the DSWD worker in the area shall be eligible for
assistance: Provided, however, That any solo parent whose income is
above the poverty threshold shall enjoy the benefits mentioned in
Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this Act.
Section 6. Flexible Work Schedule.
Section 7. Work Discrimination.
Section 8. Parental Leave. Section 9. Educational Benefits
Section 10. Housing Benefits.
LACSON v. LACSON
Facts:
Edward (petitioner) failed to give support to his daughters. He merely
gave meager amounts for school expenses. The mother and the
respondents were forced to rely on their uncle, Noel Daban
Held:
1. The Court held that the respondents ARE entitled for support in
arrears. Art 203: the respondents are entitled to receive support
from the date when a demand for support was made upon him,
which was 1995.
2. The Court held that the uncle is entitled for reimbursement from
the plaintiff. According to Art 207 of the Family Code, any third
person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of
reimbursement from the person obliged to give support.
FUNERALS
Art 305-310
THE FAMILY HOME

Art 152, FC the family home, constituted jointly by husband and wife,
or by an unmarried head of the family, is a) the dwelling where the
family resides and b) the land on which it is situated
Art 153 Family home constitutes on a house and lot upon time of
occupation as family residence. Family home continues to exist so long
as any of its beneficiaries actually reside there. It is exempt from
execution, forced sale or attachment except as provided by law.
Art 154 The beneficiaries of the Family Home:
1. Husband and Wife, or an unmarried person who is Head of the
Family
2. Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, who are a) living in the
family home and b) who depend upon the Head for support
Art 155 Family Home shall be exempt from forced sale, execution
and/or attachment EXCEPT:
1. For non-payment of taxes
2. Debts incurred prior to the constitution of the Family Home
3. Debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after
constitution
4. Debts to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, material
men and other who have aided in construction of the building
Art 156 Family Home must be part of ACP/CPG or Exclusive Property
of one spouse with the others consent or may be constituted by an
unmarried head upon his own property.
Property subject to conditional sale on installments, where ownership is
reserved to guarantee payment, may be constituted as the Family Home
Art 157 Actual value of Family Home must not exceed:300,000 pesos
in Urban Areas, 200,000 pesos in Rural Areas, or fixed by law
Art 158 the Family Home may be alienated, encumbered, sold,
donated or assigned by the owners thereof, with written consent of the
person constituting the same, the latters spouse, and the majority of the
beneficiaries of legal age. In case of doubt, the Court decides.

Art 159 Family Home shall continue to exist even after death of
Spouses or of the Unmarried Head, for a period of 10 years or for as long
as there is a minor beneficiary.
The heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling
reasons therefor. This rule applies regardless of who constituted/owns
the Home.
Art 160 for creditors not enumerated in Art 155, obtaining judgment
in their favor and having reasonable ground to believe that the Family
Home is worth more than the amount specified in Art 157, the creditor
may apply to the court for an order of sale by execution.
Court shall so order if it finds that the actual value is more than the
maximum allowed by law at the time of constitution.
If increase in value, exceeding maximum allowed by law, is caused by
improvements done by person or persons constituting the home, by
owners of the property, or by any beneficiaries, the same rule shall
apply.
Art 161 For purposes of availing benefits of a Family Home, a person
may constitute or be a beneficiary in only one Family Home
Art 162 This Chapter also governs existing Family Residences insofar
its provisions are applicable

MODEQUILLO V. BREVA
FACTS:
Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay (petitioners) are
ordered by CA to pay jointly and severally
Sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land and a parcel of
agricultural land registered in the name of Jose.
The residential land is where the family home is built
since 1969 prior to the commencement of the case and
so it is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment
under Art. 152 and 153, FC.
Judgment debt sought to be enfo
rced is not one of
those enumerated under Art. 155, FC.
HELD:

Art. 162, FC only means that all existing family residences at

the time of FCs effectivity are considered family homes and are
prospectively entitled to the benefits of a family home under the FC.
The debt or liability which was the basis of judgment arose at
the time of the vehicular accident (March 16, 1976) and the money
judgment rendered by CA (January 29, 1988). Both preceded the FCs
effectivity on Aug. 3, 1988. Thus, the case does not fall under the
exemptions under the FC.

PATRICIO V. DARIO III

FACTS:
Marcelino Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife
(Perla Patricio, petitioner) and his two sons (Marcelino Marc
Dario and Marcelino Dario III, private respondent).
The wife and two sons extrajudicially settled the estate of their
father. Among the properties was a parcel of land with a
residential house and a pre-school building built thereon.
Petitioner and Marc formally advised Dario III of their intention
to partition the subject property and terminate co-ownership.
Dario III refused.
Trial court: ordered partition: 4/6 to Perla, 1/6 to Marc, 1/6 to
Dario III. Dario III filed motion reconsideration but was also
denied..
HELD:
Moreover, Art. 159, FC provides that the family home shall continue
despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head of the
family for a period of 10 years or for as long as there is a minor
beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court
finds compelling reasons therefore. However, the a) minor
contemplated in this article must not only b) reside in the home but
must also be c) dependent on the head of the family for legal
support (as stated in Art. 154, FC).

VENERACION V. MANCILLA
FACTS:
To secure the payment, Elizabeth executed a real estate
mortgage over her residential lot with a residential house
situated thereon.

HELD:

But it must be proved first that it was indeed a conjugal home

and that their father spent for the acquisition of such. In this case, it was
not proven.
ARRIOLA v ARRIOLA (2008)
SUMMARY: Subject house was built by the decedent on his exclusive
property. Said house has been the residence of petitioners [2nd family]
for 20 years. House is therefore the family home.
This being so, it is shielded from partition under Article 159 of FC [family
home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the
unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years and the heirs
cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons
therefor.] The family home cannot be partitioned this time, even if it
has passed to the co- ownership of the heirs, parties herein.
JOSEF V SANTOS
SUMMARY: Petitioner failed to pay respondent for shoe materials he
brought on credit. Petitioner contends that one of the
properties is the family home and thus exempted from
execution. Court held that Petition is meritorious;
HELD: NO. The lower courts should have conducted a solemn inquiry
into the nature of the real property after the petitioner has alleged that
the property is their family home. Trial court should have observed the
following procedure:
Determine if the obligation falls under the exceptions under Art.
155, FC
Determine the veracity of petitioners claim that it is a family
home
If it is already found to be the family home, the Court should
determine
o If the obligation was contracted before/after the
effectivity of FC
o If petitioners spouse is still alive, as well as beneficiaries
o If the petitioner has more than one residence
o Its actual location and value (Art. 157 and 160)
SPOUSES DE MESA V. SPOUSES ACERO
Facts:
Spouses De Mesa filed a new complaint to nullify the title held by
Spouses Acero, stating that their family home stood on the

subject property and it was exempt from being subject to

execution under Art. 153..
Ratio:
The settled rule is that the right to exemption or forced sale under
Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal privilege granted to the
judgment debtor and as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff, but
by the debtor himself before the sale of the property at public auction. It
is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that
such property is a family home. This claim for exemption must be set
up and proved to the Sheriff. x x x.