SPOUSES ARACELI OLIVA-DE OLIVA-DE MESA, et al. v. SPOUSES CLAUDIO D. ACERO, JR., et al.
G.R. No. 185064, 16 January 2012, SECOND DIVISION (Reyes, J.)
It is incumbent upon the debtor to invoke and prove that the subject property is his family home within the prescribed period, otherwise laches will set in.
Claudio D. Acero Jr., being the highest bidder, acquired the ownership of a parcel of land formerly owned by petitioners Araceli Oliva-De Mesa and Ernesto S. De Mesa (Spouses De Mesa). The property was sold at a public auction after Spouses De Mesa failed to pay the loan they secured from Acero. Thereafter, respondents Acero and his wife Rufina (Spouses Acero) leased the subject property to its former owners who then defaulted in the payment of the rent. Unable to collect the rentals due, Spouses Acero filed a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Spouses De Mesa. The MTC ruled in Spouses Acero’s favor. In their defense, Spouses De Mesa filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to nullify TCT No. T-221755 (M) on the basis that the subject property is a family home which is exempt from execution under the Family Code, and thus, could have not been validly levied upon for purposes of satisfying their unpaid loan. However, the RTC dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s Decision. ISSUE:
Whether or not the family home is exempted from from execution HELD:
Petition DENIED. Indeed, the family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories that last during one’s lifetime. It is i s likewise without dispute that the family home, h ome, from the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, is generally exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment. The family home is a real right, which whi ch is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases. However, this right can be waived or be barred by laches by the failure to set up and prove the status of the property as a family home at the time of the levy or a reasonable time thereafter. For all intents and purposes, the negligence of Petitioners De Mesa or their omission to assert their right within a reasonable time gives rise to the presumption that they have abandoned, waived or declined to assert it. Since the exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal right, it is incumbent upon the De Mesa to invoke and prove the same within the prescribed period and it is not the sheriff’s duty to presume or raise the status of the subject property as a family home.
UST Law Review, Vol. LVII L VII No. 1, November 2012
