Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
182
182
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Apolinario N. Lomabao, Jr. forpetitioners.
Josue Ocampo Astive, Jr. forrespondents.
CARPIOMORALES,J.:
Respondents filed in 2003 a complaint1 for illegal
dismissal against E.M. Ramos Electric, Inc., a company
owned by Ernesto M. Ramos (Ramos), the patriarch of
hereinpetitioners.ByDecision2ofApril15,2005,theLabor
Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents and ordered Ramos
and the company to pay the aggregate amount of
P1,661,490.30 representing their backwages, separation
pay,13thmonthpay&serviceincentiveleavepay.
TheDecisionhavingbecomefinalandexecutoryandno
settlement having been forged by the parties, the Labor
Arbiter issued on September 8, 2005 a writ of execution3
which the Deputy Sheriff of the National Labor Relations
Commission(NLRC)implementedbylevyingapropertyin
Ramos name covered by TCT No. 38978, situated in
Pandacan,Manila(Pandacanproperty).
_______________
1NLRCrecords,Vol.I,p.2.
2Id.,atpp.7886.PennedbyLaborArbiterJoelS.Lustria.
3Id.,atpp.9698.
183
VOL.625,JULY20,2010
183
184
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
July30,2009toredeemtheproperty,holdingthattodoso
wouldgivepetitioners,asmereheirs,abetterrightthanthe
Ramos.
Astopetitionersclaimthatthepropertywascoveredby
theregimeofconjugalpartnershipofgainsandassuchonly
Ramos share can be levied upon, the NLRC ruled that
petitioners failed to substantiate such claim and that the
phrase in the TCT indicating the registered owner as
Ernesto Ramos, married to Juanita Trinidad, Filipinos,
did not mean that both owned the property, the phrase
havingmerelydescribedRamoscivilstatus.
Before the appellate court, petitioners alleged that the
NLRCerredinrulingthatthemarketvalueoftheproperty
wasP2,177,000asassessedbytheCityAssessorofManila
andappearinginthedocumentssubmittedbeforetheLabor
Arbiter, claiming that at the time the Pandacan property
was constituted as the family home in 1944, its value was
waybelowP300,000;andthatArt.153oftheFamilyCode
was applicable, hence, they no longer had to resort to
judicialorextrajudicialconstitution.
In the assailed Decision7 of September 24, 2008, the
appellatecourt,indenyingpetitionersappeal,heldthatthe
Pandacan property was not exempted from execution, for
while Article 1538 of the Family Code provides that the
familyhomeisdeemedconstitutedonahouseandlotfrom
the time it is occupied as a family residence, [it] did not
mean that the article has a retroactive effect such that all
existingfamily
_______________
7 Rollo, pp. 719. Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo
Zenarosa and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E.
MaambongandSixtoC.Marella,Jr.
8Art.153.Thefamilyhomeisdeemedconstitutedonahouseand
lotfromthetimeitisoccupiedasafamilyresidence.Fromthetimeof
its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from
execution,forcedsaleorattachmentexceptashereinafterprovidedand
totheextentofthevalueallowedbylaw.
185
VOL.625,JULY20,2010
185
9Josef v. Santos,G.R.No.165060,November27,2008,572SCRA57,63.
10G.R.No.172263,July9,2008,557SCRA499,501502.
186
186
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
VOL.625,JULY20,2010
187
188
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ramos vs. Pangilinan
theareawhereitislocated.Further,thedebtsincurredfor
whichtheexemptiondoesnotapplyasprovidedunderArt.
15514forwhichthefamilyhome
_______________
(4)The names of the claimants spouse and the other beneficiaries
mentionedinArticle226.
Art.242. The recording in the Registry of Property of the
declarationreferredtointhetwoprecedingarticlesistheoperativeact
whichcreatesthefamilyhome.
13Art.154.Thebeneficiariesofafamilyhomeare:
(1)Thehusbandandwife,oranunmarriedpersonwhoisthehead
of a family; and (2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers
andsisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who
are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the
familyforlegalsupport.
14 Art.155.The family home shall be exempt from execution,
forcedsaleorattachmentexcept:
(1)Fornonpaymentoftaxes;
(2)Fordebtsincurredpriortotheconstitutionofthefamilyhome;
(3)Fordebtssecuredbymortgagesonthepremisesbeforeorafter
suchconstitution;and
189
VOL.625,JULY20,2010
189