Montoya V.

Ignacio
Summary Cases:
Sancho Montoya vs. Marcelino Ignacio
Subject:
Debts in which the family home is not exempt from execution, Family Home, Money
judgment is debt
Facts:
The court rendered a decision sentencing Marcelino Ignacio to pay Php 31,000 to
Sancho Montoya as damages for the death of a passenger in a vehicle operated as
a public service in the name of Ignacio.
A property registered to Ignacio and his wife, Estelita Poniente, was levied by the
sheriff and was advertised to be sold. But, Ignacio issued a petition claiming that
the property consisting of a Lot and a residential house registered under his name
and his spouse was a family home and, thus, exempted from execution. The petition
was denied and also his subsequent motion for reconsideration which alleged
further that as the judgment debtor, according to the judgment creditors
themselves, had personal properties (consisting of 14 passengers jeepneys)
sufficient to satisfy the judgment.
Issue:
W/N the property in question should be declared exempt from execution as a family
home extrajudicially constituted.
Held:
Family Homes Not Exempt From Execution For Debts Incurred Before Its
Establishment
1. According to Article 243, subdivision 2 of the new Civil Code:
The family home extrajudicially formed shall be exempt from execution,
forced sale or attachment except: (2) For debts incurred before the
declaration was recorded in the Registry of Property.
2. The family home involved in the present case having been judicially
constituted, it comes under Article 243 of the new Civil Code, and, in
accordance with subdivision (2) thereof, is not exempt from execution for
debts incurred before it was recorded in the Registry of Property.

Money Judgment Is Debt

3. A money judgment is just as much a debt as a monetary obligation

voluntarily assumed, and no special reason exists for putting it below the
category of the latter for the purposes of Article 243 of the New Civil Code.
Therefore the family home of Ignacio is not exempted from execution.
4. The defendants argument that the subdivision (2) of Article 243 of the new
Civil Code refers to monetary obligations willfully contracted, has no merit. It
should be define in its generic sense that will include monetary obligations
willfully contracted and money judgments arising from torts.