Ramos v.

Pangilinan
G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010
J. Carpio Morales

Digest Author: June Vincent Ferrer III

Topic: Constitution of Family Home

Petitioners: Juanita Trinidad Ramos, Alma Ramos Worak, Manuel T. Ramos, Josefina R.
Rothman, Sonia R. Post, Elvira P. Munar, and Ofelia R. Lim
Respondents: Danilo Pangilinan, Rodolfo Sumang, Lucrecio Bautista and Rolando Antenor

Case Summary: Respondents won a labor case for money claims against Ramos where the LA
ordered Ramos to pay P1.6M to respondents. The Deputy Sheriff of the NLRC implemented this
by levying the Pandacan property owned by Ramos. Ramos questioned this, claiming that the
Pandacan property was the family home and thus, exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment
award.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Pandacan property was not constituted as a family home. Here,
the Ramos family claims that the family home was constituted prior to August 3, 1988, or as early
as 1944. However, there was no proof that the Pandacan property was judicially or extrajudicially
constituted as the Ramos’ family home.

Doctrine: If the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or before
August 3, 1988, the family home must have been constituted either judicially or extra-judicially.

If the family home was constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988,
there is no need to constitute extrajudicially or judicially.

FACTS

• In 2005, respondents won a labor case for money claims against Ramos
o The Labor Arbiter ordered Ramos to pay P1.6M to respondents (backwages, etc.)

• The LA issued a writ of execution

• The Deputy Sheriff of the NLRC implemented this by levying a property owned by
Ramos
o Located in Pandacan, Manila (Pandacan property)

• Ramos then moved to quash the writ of execution, alleging that:

o The Pandacan property was the family home
o Hence, it is exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment award

• Respondents countered:
o The Pandacan property is not the Ramos family home
§ The Ramos family has another in Antipolo
 § In fact, the Pandacan property served as the company's business address
as borne by the company's letterhead.
o Assuming that the Pandacan property was indeed the family home, only the value
equivalent to P300,000 was exempt from execution

• LA denied the motion to quash

o NLRC affirmed

• During the pendency of the appeal before CA, Ramos died

o Thus, he was substituted by the Ramos family (petitioners)

• The Ramos family then filed a Manifestation questioning the Notice to Vacate issued by
the Sheriff, alleging that:
o Assuming that the Pandacan property may be levied upon, the family home
straddled 2 lots
o Hence, they cannot be asked to vacate the house

• LA denied the third-party claim

o Ramos’ death and petitioners’ substitution as his compulsory heirs would not nullify
the sale at auction of the Pandacan property

• NLRC affirmed

• Upon appeal before CA, the Ramos family alleged that:

o NLRC erred in ruling that the market value of the property was P2.1M
§ At the time the Pandacan property was constituted as the family home in
1944, its value was way below P300K
o Art. 153 of the Family Code was applicable
§ Hence, they no longer had to resort to judicial or extrajudicial
constitution

• CA denied their appeal

o The Pandacan property was not exempted from execution
§ While Art. 153 of the Family Code provides that the family home is deemed
constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family
residence, it did not mean that Art. 153 has a retroactive effect such that
all existing family residences are deemed to have been constituted as
family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the
Family Code.
o What was applicable were Arts. 224 to 251 of the Civil Code
o Hence, there was still a need to either judicially or extrajudicially constitute
the Pandacan property as petitioners’ family home before it can be exempted
§ Since petitioners failed to comply, there was no error in denying the motion
to quash the writ of execution

• Hence, this petition for review on certiorari

 ISSUES AND HELD

1. W/N the Pandacan property was constituted as petitioners’ family home – NO

RULE

• GR: The family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from
attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is situated, which
confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with
the person constituting it and his heirs.
o XPN: Except in certain special cases

• Kelley, Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc.

o A family home is generally exempt from execution provided it was duly
constituted as such.
§ There must be proof that the alleged family home was constituted jointly by
the husband and wife or by an unmarried head of a family
§ It must be the house where they and their family actually reside and the lot
on which it is situated
§ The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community
or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse
with the latter's consent
o The actual value of the family home shall not exceed the amount of P300,000 in
urban areas and P200,000 in rural areas, at the time of its constitution.
o Under the Family Code, there is no need to constitute the family home
judicially or extrajudicially.
§ All family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code
(August 3, 1988) are constituted as such by operation of law.
§ All existing family residences as of August 3, 1988 are considered family
homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family
home under the Family Code.
o The exemption is effective from the time of the constitution of the family
home as such and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein.
o Moreover, the debts for which the family home is made answerable must
have been incurred after August 3, 1988
§ Otherwise, if the debts were incurred before August 3, 1988, the alleged
family home must be shown to have been constituted either judicially or
extrajudicially pursuant to the Civil Code

• For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made as to
what law applies based on when it was constituted and what requirements must be
complied with by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such privilege.
o Hence, two sets of rules are applicable

• If the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or
before August 3, 1988, the family home must have been constituted either judicially
or extra-judicially
 § As provided under Arts. 225, 229-231 and 233 of the Civil Code
o Judicial constitution of the family home requires:
§ Filing a verified petition before the courts
§ Registration of the court's order with the Registry of Deeds of the area
where the property is located
o Extrajudicial constitution of the family home requires:
§ Execution of a public instrument
§ Registering the public instrument with the Registry of Property
§ Governed by Arts. 240 to 242 of the Civil Code
o Failure to comply with either one of these two modes of constitution will bar
a judgment debtor from availing of the privilege

• If the family home was constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on
August 3, 1988, there is no need to constitute extrajudicially or judicially
o The exemption is effective from the time it was constituted and lasts as long
as any of its beneficiaries under Art. 154 actually resides therein.
o Moreover, the family home should belong to the absolute community or conjugal
partnership, or if exclusively by one spouse, its constitution must have been with
consent of the other, and its value must not exceed certain amounts depending
upon the area where it is located.
o Further, the debts incurred for which the exemption does not apply as provided
under Art. 155 for which the family home is made answerable must have been
incurred after August 3, 1988.

• In both cases, it is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges
that such property is a family home.
o This claim for exemption must be set up and proved.

APPLICATION

• In this case, the Ramos family claims that the family home was constituted prior to August
3, 1988, or as early as 1944
o Thus, they must comply with the procedure mandated by the Civil Code

• However, there was no proof that the Pandacan property was judicially or
extrajudicially constituted as the Ramos’ family home

• The sheriff also exhausted all means to execute the judgment but failed because Ramos’
bank accounts were already closed while the other properties in his or the company's
name had already been transferred
o The only property left was the Pandacan property

RULING

Petition DENIED.