The Family Code of the
Philippines
Executive Order No. 209 July 6, 1987
Executive Order No. 209 July 6, 1987
Art. 159. 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 ten years or for as long as there
is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the
court finds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of
whoever owns the property or constituted the family home. (238a)
Art. 160. When a
creditor whose claims is not among those mentioned in Article 155 obtains a
judgment in his favor, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the family
home is actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article 157, he
may apply to the court which rendered the judgment for an order directing the
sale of the property under execution. The court shall so order if it finds that
the actual value of the family home exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law
as of the time of its constitution. If the increased actual value exceeds the
maximum allowed in Article 157 and results from subsequent voluntary
improvements introduced by the person or persons constituting the family home,
by the owner or owners of the property, or by any of the beneficiaries, the
same rule and procedure shall apply.
At the execution
sale, no bid below the value allowed for a family home shall be considered. The
proceeds shall be applied first to the amount mentioned in Article 157, and
then to the liabilities under the judgment and the costs. The excess, if any,
shall be delivered to the judgment debtor. (247a, 248a)
Art. 161. For
purposes of availing of the benefits of a family home as provided for in this
Chapter, a person may constitute, or be the beneficiary of, only one family
home. (n)
Art. 162. The
provisions in this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar
as said provisions are applicable. (n)
Article 159 provides the continued protection
of the family home for a period of 10 years after the death of a spouse or the
head of the family who constituted the same. The heirs are also prohibited from
immediately partitioning the family home. The prohibition may last for more
than ten years for as long as there is a minor living in the family home. The only
exception to this prohibition is that if the court finds a compelling reason to
partition the family home. The reasons for this prohibitions are:
1)
To
preserve the family home as the physical symbol of family love, security and
unity. (Albano)
2)
No
greater calamity, not tainted with crime, can befall a family than to be
expelled from the roof under which it has been gathered and sheltered. (Eulogio
vs Bell, G.R. No. 186322, July 8, 2015)
Article 160 provides relief to creditors
who are not covered by the exceptions under Article 155. Such creditors can go
to court and prove that
1)
the
family home is actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article 157;
or
2)
the
increased in actual value of the family home exceeds the maximum allowed in
Article 157
Under the second option, creditors may successfully
lay claim on the family home, if they have alleged and proved that
1)
there
was an increase in its actual value;
2)
the
increase resulted from voluntary improvements on the property introduced by the
persons constituting the family home, its owners or any of its beneficiaries;
and
3)
the
increased actual value exceeded the maximum allowed under Article 157.
For example, the actual value of the
family home upon its constitution or its value has increased to more than what
is allowed under Article 157, then such creditor can ask the court to auction
the family home. The proceeds should be applied first for the constitution of a
new family home and the expenses of the litigation and other mandatory levies
such as the taxes on the property and then whatever remains shall go to such
creditor. See an illustrative example below.
Article 162 enunciates the
prospective application of the provisions of the Family Code insofar as
gratuitous and inalienable rights to the family home are concerned.
Case Digest
Arriola v. Arriola
G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008
Facts:
Fidel Arriola had a son named John Nabor with
his deceased wife. He also had a son, Anthony, with his second wife, Vilma.
Fidel died in March 10, 2003 and left a house and lot in Las Piñas City. The
RTC granted John Nabor’s petition for the partition of the lot. Each heir was
to received 1/3 of the subject lot. However, the heirs failed to agree on how
to partition among themselves the subject land so the RTC ordered a public
auction of the subject land.
Anthony and Vilma refused to include
in the auction the house built on the subject land since it was their family
residence for more than 20 years. Hence, John filed an Urgent Manifestation and
Motion for Contempt of Court. The RTC denied the motion since it recognized the
fact that the house was not included in the petition for partition.
John elevated the issue to the Court
of Appeals, which ruled in his favor. Citing the principle of accession, the CA
ruled that an improvement automatically formed part of the principal. Hence,
when the subject land, the principal, was ordered to be partitioned, the house,
an improvement thereon was also deemed subject to partition.
Issue:
Whether or not, the house that stood on
the parcel of land subject for partition, should also be part of the partition
via public auction.
Ruling:
No. The house that stood on the
parcel of land subject for partition, should not be part of the partition via
public auction.
The Supreme Court agreed with the
CA’s application of the principle of accession on this particular case. However,
the Supreme Court said that both the RTC and CA should have dismissed the
motion filed by John because it was procedurally flawed. This would then effectively
reinstate the ruling of the RTC but for the wrong reason. Thus, instead of
simply remanding the case to the RTC, which could result to prolonged legal
battle between the opposing parties, the Supreme Court resolved the issue on
substantive grounds.
The SC pointed to the pertinence of Article
159 of the Family Code that specifically proscribed the partition of the family
home, unless for a compelling reason, for at least 10 years following the death
of one or both spouses or after the death of the unmarried head of the family
who constituted the family home. The Supreme Court did not see any compelling
reason for the immediate partition of the family home.
Fidel died on March 10, 2003 so the
partition could only be effected on March 10, 2013. During this period, the
Supreme Court allowed the auction of the subject land but not the house and the
portion of the land on which it stood.
Reference:
Albano, Ed Vincent (2017). Persons and Family Relations. Central Book Supply Inc.: Manila
-------------------------
by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020
Date Last Updated: 30Nov2019
No comments:
Post a Comment