G.R.No.
186322| July 2015
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.
I. Recit-ready Summary
Basically in this case: 1995, the Bell siblings lodged a Complaint
against petitioner Enrico S. Eulogio and Natividad Eulogio (the Eulogios).
The complaint sought the annulment of the contract of sale executed by
Spouses Bell over their 329-square-meter residential house and lot in
Batangas, as well as the cancellation of the title obtained by petitioners by
virtue of the Deed. This is because there was no written consent given by
the Bell siblings who are beneficiaries.
The RTC granted respondents’ prayers, but declared Spouses Bell
liable to petitioners in the amount of 1 million plus 12% interest per annum.
So although the Bell family gets the house back, they need to pay back the 1
million since the Deed of Sale was declared void. The RTC also declared
the house and lot property to be a family home. The decision was also
declared to be final and executory.
The Bell family then appealed to the SC to question the 1 million
peso liability but this was dismissed by the Court. Afterwards, after
reconstituting the title in favor of the Bell family, the RTC ordered for the
selling of the property to pay for the 1 million peso liability, but upon
motion of the Bell Family, they lifted the writ of execution as the land was a
family home.
After this, the petitioners Eulogio filed an MR and invoked Article
160, they claim that the current market value of the property exceeded the
statutory limit of 300,000 considering that it was located in a commercial
area, and that Spouses Bell had even sold it to them for 1 million. This the
RTC assembled a Board of Appraisers to figure out the value of the
property. Respondents Bell sought reconsideration and asked the RTC to
cite them for contempt for forum shopping. But this was dismissed.
Then the RTC after seeing the valuation report, issued the writ of
execution once again for the property, to which the respondents Bell went to
the CA for a TRO. The CA granted the petition.Still, the CA found that the
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution
sale of the subject family home after finding its present value exceeded the
statutory limit. The basis for the valuation of a family home under Article
160, according to the appellate court, is its actual value at the time of its
Persons and Family Law (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Sean Lee
The Family Home
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.
constitution and not the market/present value; therefore, the trial court’s
order was contrary to law. On 09 February 2009,18 the CA denied
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition​.
There are 3 issues in this case (1) if the petitioners are guilty of forum
shopping (2) whether the valuation of the family home is barred by res
judicata ​(3) can the family home be sold under article 160.
SC ruled that there is no forum shopping and relitigating the issue of
the value of the Bell family home is barred by ​res judicata​.
On the main issue, the SC ruled that NO, the family home cannot be
sold on execution under Article 160. Read Articles 153, 155 and 160 to
understand the reasoning. Family ​homes are generally exempt from
execution as stated in Article 153. Article 155 talks about the exceptions to
that rule, and Article 160 explains that if the creditor’s claim isn’t part of
the list in 155, they can still go after the family home provided that the
home exceeds the amounts stated in Article 157. The family home was not
proven to be worth over 300,000 pesos ​at the time of its constitution, ​as
said earlier, it was only valued at 126,000 pesos. There is no actual proof
that the family home exceeded the 300,000 peso value cap for homes in
urban areas, aside from the Deed of Sale that was already declared null. To
warrant the execution, it needs to be established that (1) there was an
increase in actual value (2) the increase resulted from voluntary
improvements on the property introduced by the persons, owners or any
beneficiaries, (3) the increased actual value exceeded those allowed in
Article 160.
Thus the SC denies the petition for lack of merit and affirms the decision
of the CA to enjoin the trial. Ours from proceeding with the sale of the
family home.
Facts of the Case
Respondents Paterno William Bell, Jr., Florence Felicia Victoria
Bell, Paterno Ferdinand Bell III, and Paterno Benerano IV (the Bell
siblings) are the unmarried children of respondent Spouses Paterno C. Bell
and Rogelia Calingasan-Bell (Spouses Bell). In 1995, the Bell siblings
lodged a Complaint against petitioner Enrico S. Eulogio and Natividad
1
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Enrico and Natividad Eulogio
DEFENDANT- APPELLANT: The Whole Bell Family
 G.R.No. 186322| July 2015
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.
Eulogio (the Eulogios). The complaint sought the annulment of the contract
of sale executed by Spouses Bell over their 329-square-meter residential
h​ouse and lot, as well as the cancellation of the title obtained by petitioners
by virtue of the Deed.
The RTC granted respondents’ prayers, but declared Spouses Bell
liable to petitioners in the amount of 1 million plus 12% interest per annum.
RTC declares that the sale of the subject house and lot under Deed of Sale is
only an equitable mortgage in favor of the defendants Enrico Eulogio and
Natividad Eulogio. However, the mortgage cannot bind the property in
question for being violative of Chapter 2, Title 4 of the Family Code, its
encumbrance not having been consented to in writing by a majority of the
beneficiaries who are the plaintiffs herein;
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Batangas City is hereby
ordered to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of defendants
Enrico S. Eulogio and Natividad Eulogio and to re-constitute (sic) Transfer
Certificate of Title No. RT-680-(5997) as "family home" of the Spouses and
Siblings Bell. The City Assessor of Batangas City is hereby directed to
issue a tax declaration covering the said subject property as family home for
the said plaintiffs.
Both petitioners and respondent appealed to the CA, but the trial
court’s Decision was affirmed ​en toto​. Spouses Bell later brought the case
to this Court to question their liability to petitioners in the amount of 1
million plus interest. The Court, however, dismissed their Petition for
failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA.
On 9 June 2004 the RTC issued a Writ of Execution as a result of
which respondents’ property covered by the newly reconstituted Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 54208 [formerly RT-680 (5997)] was levied
on execution. Upon motion by respondents, trial court, on 31 August 2004,
ordered the lifting of the writ of execution on the ground that the property
was a family home.
Petitioners Eulogio filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
lifting of the writ of execution. Invoking Article 160 of the Family Code,
Persons and Family Law (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Sean Lee
The Family Home
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.
they posited that the current market value of the property exceeded the
statutory limit of 300,000 considering that it was located in a commercial
area, and that Spouses Bell had even sold it to them for 1 million. The RTC,
on 13 October 2004, set the case for hearing to determine the present value
of the family home of respondents. It also appointed a Board of Appraisers
to conduct a study on the prevailing market value of their house and lot.
Respondents sought reconsideration of the above directives and
asked the RTC to cite petitioners for contempt because of forum-shopping.
They argued that petitioners’ bid to determine the present value of the
subject property was just a ploy to re-litigate an issue that had long been
settled with finality. The RTC, however, denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of respondents and directed the commissioners to canvass
prospective buyers of their house and lot.
On 23 November 2004, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Injunction before the CA. where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No.
87531. Subsequently, the RTC issued on 25 November 2004 an Order
dispensing with the valuation report of the commissioners and directing the
issuance of a writ of execution. Consequently, respondents filed before the
CA a Supplemental Petition with an urgent prayer for a temporary
restraining order.The CA eventually enjoined the execution sale set on 22
December 2004 by the RTC. On 31 July 2008, the CA rendered it Decision
granting respondent’s Petition for Certiorari, but it rejected their theory that
res judicata had already set in.
The CA ruled that the RTC Decision, which had become final and
executory, only declared respondents’ house and lot as a family home.
Since the issue of whether it may be sold in execution was incidental to the
execution of the aforesaid Decision, there was as yet no res judicata.
Still, the CA found that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering the execution sale of the subject family home after
finding its present value exceeded the statutory limit. The basis for the
valuation of a family home under Article 160, according to the appellate
court, is its actual value at the time of its constitution and not the
2
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Enrico and Natividad Eulogio
DEFENDANT- APPELLANT: The Whole Bell Family
 G.R.No. 186322| July 2015
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.
market/present value; therefore, the trial court’s order was contrary to law.
On 09 February 2009,18 the CA denied petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition​.
II. Issue/s
1. W/N, The petitioners are guilty of forum shopping? ​NO.
2. W/N a hearing to determine the value of the respondent’s family
home for purposes of execution under Article 160 is barred by the
principle of res judicata? Y​ ES.
3. W/N the respondent’s family home can be sold on execution
under Article 160? NO
III. Holding/s
1. NO. W ​ /N The petitioners are guilty of forum shopping?
Forum shopping happens when there is a filing of multiple suits for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the
purpose of obtaining a favourable judgment ​through means other than by
appeal or certiorari. ​Although the RTC decision is final and executory,
execution of a decision is not separate from the main case, and filing of the
instant petition as continuation of the execution proceedings is not forum
shopping. Neither is seeking the reversal of an adverse judgment. Such
remedies are sanctioned and provided for by the rules.
2. YES​. ​W/N a hearing to determine the value of the respondent’s
family home for purposes of execution under Article 160 is barred
by the principle of res judicata?
Yes it is barred by res judicata. In this case, the main proceeding
and the subsequent proceedings involve the same parties and the same
subject matter. Also, the trial court had already determined the value of the
property to be within the statutory limit. The test to determine whether there
is res judicata is to ascertain whether the cause of action are identical,
whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, and whether there is an
identity of the facts essential to the maintenance of both actions.
3. NO. ​W/N the respondent’s family home can be sold on execution
under Article 160?
Persons and Family Law (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Sean Lee
The Family Home
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.
Family ​homes are generally exempt from execution as stated in
Article 153. Family ​homes are generally exempt from execution as stated in
Article 153. Article 155 talks about the exceptions to that rule, and Article
160 explains that if the creditor’s claim isn’t part of the list in 155, they can
still go after the family home provided that the home exceeds the amounts
stated in Article 157. The family home was not proven to be worth over
300,000 pesos ​at the time of its constitution, ​as said earlier, it was only
valued at 126,000 pesos. There is no actual proof that the family home
exceeded the 300,000 peso value cap for urban areas, aside from the Deed
of Sale that was already declared null. To warrant the execution, it needs to
be established that (1) there was an increase in actual value (2) the increase
resulted from voluntary improvements on the property introduced by the
persons, owners or any beneficiaries, (3) the increased actual value
exceeded those allowed in Article 160. The petitioners had failed to show
evidence that this was the case, and the RTC had erred in appraising the
property based on its current market value.
IV. Law or Doctrine Applied
ARTICLE 153:The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot
from the time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time of 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, forced
sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the
value allowed by law.
155: The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or
attachment except: (1) For nonpayment of taxes; (2) For debts incurred
prior to the constitution of the family home; (3) For debts secured by
mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and (4) For
debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and
others who have rendered service or furnished material for the construction
of the building.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Enrico and Natividad Eulogio
DEFENDANT- APPELLANT: The Whole Bell Family
 G.R.No. 186322| July 2015 The Family Home
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr. Eulogio v. Bell, Sr.

157: The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at the time of its ● Ponente:Sereno, CJ
constitution, the amount of the three hundred thousand pesos in urban areas,
and two hundred thousand pesos in rural areas, or such amounts as may
hereafter be fixed by law. In any event, if the value of the currency changes
after the adoption of this Code, the value most favorable for the constitution
of a family home shall be the basis of evaluation. For purposes of this
Article, urban areas are deemed to include chartered cities and
municipalities whose annual income at least equals that legally required for
chartered cities. All others are deemed to be rural areas.

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.

V. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-GR. S.P. No. 87531, enjoining the trial court from
proceeding with the sale of the family home of respondents is ​AFFIRMED.

Additional Notes

VII. Random Facts

4

Persons and Family Law (2019) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Enrico and Natividad Eulogio
DIGEST AUTHOR: Sean Lee DEFENDANT- APPELLANT: The Whole Bell Family