THE FAMILY

Docena vs. Lapesura

355 SCRA 658
Facts:
- Casiano filed for recovery of land
against
his
lesees,
petitionerspouses
- Petitioners claimed ownership of
the land based on occupation since
time immemorial
- TC initially rules for petitioners,
but REVERSES on appeal, ordering
petitioners to vacate the land and
to pay rent
- May 22, 1995 - Casiano files
Motion for Execution, Sheriff issues
an alias Write of Demolition
- Petitioners file for Certiorari and
Prohibition with the CA, denied on
grounds of it is beyond the 60 days,
and the certificate of non-forum
shopping was only signed by one of
the petitioners (Antonio)
ISSUE:

WON
certificate
of
non-forum
shopping may only be signed by
one of the spouses

PETITIONERS:
Spouses
Augusto and Maria
Hontiveros

HELD:

RESPONDENTS:
Regional
Trial
Court, Branch
25, Iloilo
City; Gregorio
Hontiveros and Teodora
Ayson

YES

- While the general rule is that

certificate of non-forum shopping
should be signed by all petitioners
the signing for conjugal property
does not make it insufficient.
- Since the husband is recognized
as the administrator of the conjugal
property the husband may defend
the conjugal partnership in a suit or
action without being joined by his
wife.

DOCTRINE:
Members of the same family are the
following:
husband
and
wife,
parents and children, ascendants
and descendants, and brothers and
sisters, whether full or half blood.
FACTS:

- While administration of conjugal

property is joint, it does not require
the spouses to always act together.
Each may validly exercise their full
power to manage alone as limited
by FC ART 124., Court presumes
that
husband
has
personal
knowledge of wifes filing, and is
clearly intended for benefit of
family.

Respondents
Gregorio
Hontiveros had filed to register a
parcel of land in Capiz, which
petitioners
Augusto,
Gregorios
brother, and Maria, Augustos wife,
protested. The spouses Hontiveros
claimed that they were the owners
of the land, and they had been
deprived both of its possession and
income.

Hontiveros v. RTC

Respondents
Gregorio
Hontiveros and Teodora Ayson
denied that they were married,
alleging that Gregorio was a
widower while Teodora was single.
The respondents also claim that the

G.R. No. 125465 ll Jun. 29,

1999

petitioners had failed to allege that

earnest efforts toward compromise
had been made pursuant to Art.
15111 since Gregorio and Augusto
were brothers. Thus, they prayed
that the subject land be reconveyed
to them.
The trial court dismissed the
petitioners case on the ground
that,
though
efforts
toward
compromise had been alleged, they
had not been verified.
ISSUES
A. Procedural:
Whether
the
lack of
verification required by Art.
151
is
sufficient
ground for
dismissal.
B. Whether Art. 151 is applicable.
RATIO
11 ART. 151. No suit between
members of the same family shall
prosper unless it should appear
from the verified complaint or
petition that earnest efforts toward
a compromise have been made, but
that the same have failed. If it is
shown that no such efforts were in
fact made, the case must be
dismissed.

This rule shall not apply to

cases which may not be the subject
of compromise under the Civil Code

VDA. DE MANALO VS. COURT

OF APPEALS
349 SCRA 135
FACTS:
1. Troadio Manalo died intestate in
Manila on February 14, 1992.
2. He was survived by his wife Pilar
and his eleven children.
3. At the time f his death, Troadio
left several properties located in
Manila and in the province of Tarlac.
4. Eight of his children, herein
respondents, filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila a petition for
the judicial settlement of the estate
of Troadio Manalo, and for the
appointment
of
their
brother,
Romeo as administrator.
5. The trial court issued an order
setting the petition for hearing and
directed the publication of the order
for three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation.

6. It also directed service by

registered mail of the said order
upon the heirs mentioned in the
petition.
7. On the date set for the hearing
for the petition, the trial court
issued an order declaring the
whole world in default, except the
government.
8. The trial court set the reception
of evidence of petitioners.
9. However, the order of general
default was set aside by the trial
court upon motion of herein
petitioners Pilar and the remaining
three other children.
10. The trial court issued an order
admitting the petition for judicial
settlement of estate.
11. Petitioners filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
12. Among their contentions was
the absence of earnest efforts
towards
compromise
among
members of the same family; and
no
certification
of
non-forum
shopping was attached to the
petition.

13. The CA denied the petition so

was
with
a
Motion
for
Reconsideration.
14. Hence this petition averring that
the petitioner should be dismissed
under Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the
Revised Rules of Court on the
ground that a condition precedent
for filing the claim has not been
complied with as their was failure to
comply with the requirement in
Article 222 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE:
Is the Petition for Issuance of
Letters
of
Administration,
Settlement and Distribution of
Estate an ordinary civil action?
Would Rule 16, Section 1(j) of
the Rules of Court vis-a-vis Article
222 of the Civil Code apply as a
ground for the dismissal of the
petition?
HELD:
It is a fundamental rule that, in the
determination of the nature of an
action or proceeding, the averment
and the character of the relief
sought in the complaint, or petition,
as in the case at bar, shall be
controlling. A careful scrutiny of the
Petition for Issuance of Letters of

Administration,
Settlement
and
Distribution of Estate belies herein
petitioners claim that the same is
in the nature of an ordinary civil
action. The said petition contains
sufficient
jurisdictional
facts
required in a petition for the
settlement of estate of a deceased
person such as the fact of death of
the late Troadio Manalo on February
4, 1992, as well as his residence in
the City of Manila at the time of his
said death. The fact of death of the
decedent and of his residence
within the country are foundation
facts upon which all the subsequent
proceedings in the administration of
the estate rest. The petition also
contains an enumeration of the
names of his legal heirs including a
tentative list of the properties left
by the deceased which are sought
to be settled in the probate
proceedings. In addition, the reliefs
prayed for in the said petition leave
no room for doubt as regard the
intention of the petitioners therein
(private respondents herein) to seek
judicial settlement of the estate of
their deceased father.
Concededly, the petition contains
certain averments which may be
typical of an ordinary civil action.
Herein petitioners, as oppositors
therein, took advantage of the said
defect in the petition and filed their

so-called Opposition thereto which,

as observed by the trial court, is
actually an Answer containing
admission and denials, special and
affirmative
defenses
and
compulsory counterclaim for actual,
moral and exemplary damages, plus
attorneys fees and costs in an
apparent effort to make out a case
of an ordinary civil action and
ultimately seek its dismissal under
Rule 16, Section 1(j) of the Rules of
Court vis--vis, Article 222 of the
Civil Code.

court of justice, whereby a party

sues another for the enforcement of
a right, or the protection or redress
of a wrong. Besides, an excerpt
from the report of the Code
Commission to make that legal
provision applicable only to civil
actions
which
are
essentially
adversarial and involve members of
the same family.

Herein petitioners may not validly

take refuge under the provisions of
Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of
Court to justify the invocation of
Article 22 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines for the dismissal of the
petition for settlement of the estate
of the deceased Troadio Manalo in
as much as the latter provision is
clear enough.

185 SCRA 766 / G.R. Nbo. 86355

Article 222 is applicable only to

ordinary civil actions. This is clear
form the term suit that it refers to
an action by one person or person
against another or others in a court
of justice in which the plaintiff
pursues the remedy which the law
afford him for the redress of an
injury or the enforcement of a right,
whether at law or in equity. A civil
action is thus an action filed in a

Modequillo vs. Breva

May 31, 1990

FACTS:
Petitioners Jose Modequillo
and Benito Malubay were ordered to
pay jointly and severally to plaintiffapellants pertaining to damages
arising from a vehicular accident
killing Audie Salinas and injuring
Renato Culan.
On July 7, 1988, the sheriff
levied a parcel of residentioal land
located
at
Poblacion
Malalag
Surigao Del Sur registered in the
name of Jose Modequillo.
A Motion to quash and/or to
set aside the levy of execution was
filed by Modequillo alleging therein

that the residential land is where

their family home is built since
1969 prior to the commencement of
this case and as such is exempt
from execution, forced sale or
attachment under Articles 152 and
153 of the Family Code except for
the liabilities mentioned in Article
155 thereof and that the judgment
debt sought to be enforced against
the family home of Modequillo is
not one of those enumerated under
Article 155 of the Family Code.
Respondents on the other
hand say that the said house and
lot only became a family home in
1988 when the Family Code took
effect. They say that under the Civil
Code, the house and lot did not
qualify as a family home since the
Family Code provision on family
homes do not retroact.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Family Code
provisions of family homes have a
retroactive application
HELD:

does not mean that all family

residences not considered as family
homes prior to the Family Code
would be retroactively deemed as
family homes at the time of their
occupation. Since the debt which
arose from the time of the vehicular
accident (March 16, 1976) and the
judgement
was
before
the
effectivity of the Family Code
(August 3, 1988), it is not exempt
from execution. * not a family home
when the debt was incurred = not
exempt*

PABLITO TANEO, JR., JOSE

TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and
HUSBAND, CILIA T. MORING
and HUSBAND
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and
ABDON GILIG
G.R. No. 108532

March 9, 1999

No

Ratio:
The house and lot became a family
home upon the effectivity of the
Family Code in August 3, 1988 but it

Facts:
As a result of a judgment in
Civil Case No. 590 (for recovery of
property) in favor of private
respondent, two (2) of petitioners'

properties were levied to satisfy the

judgment
amount
of
about
P5,000.00: one was a parcel of land
located in Barrio Igpit, Municipality
of Opol, Misamis Oriental with an
area of about five (5) hectares, and
the other was the family home also
located at Igpit, Opol, Misamis
Oriental.
The subject properties were
sold at public auction on February
12, 1966 to the private respondent
as the highest bidder.
Consequently,
after
petitioners' failure to redeem the
same, a final deed of conveyance
was executed on February 9, 1968,
definitely selling, transferring, and
conveying said properties to the
private respondent.
To
forestall
such
conveyance, petitioners filed an
action on November 5, 1985
(docketed as Civil Case No. 10407)
to declare the deed of conveyance
void and to quiet title over the land
with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
In their complaint, it was
alleged that petitioners are the
children and heirs of Pablo Taneo
and Narcisa Valaceras who died on
February 12, 1977 and September

12, 1984, respectively. Upon their

death, they left the subject property
covered by OCT No. P-12820 and
Free Patent No. 548906.

Whether or not the family

home is exempt from execution.
RULING:

FACTS:

Considering
that
said
property has been acquired through
free patent, such property is
therefore
inalienable
and
not
subject to any encumbrance for the
payment of debt, pursuant to
Commonwealth
Act
No.
141.
Petitioners further alleged that they
were in continuous, open and
peaceful possession of the land and
that on February 9, 1968.

The Supreme Court held that

the applicable law, therefore, in the
case at bar is still the Civil Code
where
registration
of
the
declaration of a family home is a
prerequisite.

Florante Manacop and his

wife Euaceli purchased on March
1972, a residential lot with a
bungalow located in Quezon City.
The petitioner failed to pay the subcontract cost pursuant to a deed of
assignment
signed
between
petitioners corporation and private
respondent herein (FF Cruz & Co).

Deputy Provincial Sheriff Jose

V. Yasay issued a Sheriffs Deed of
Conveyance in favor of the private
respondent
over
the
subject
property including their family
home that was extra judicially
constituted in accordance with law.
As a result of the alleged
illegal deed of conveyance, private
respondent was able to obtain in his
name Tax Declaration No. 851920
over the land, thus casting a cloud
of doubt over the title and
ownership of petitioners over said
property.
ISSUE:

Nonetheless,
the
law
provides certain instances where
the family home is not exempted
from execution, forced sale or
attachment. The trial court found
that on March 7, 1964, Pablo Taneo
constituted the house in question,
erected on the land of Plutarco
Vacalares, as the family home. The
instrument constituting the family
home was registered only on
January 24, 1966. The money
judgment against Pablo Taneo was
rendered on January 24, 1964.
Thus, at that time when the "debt"
was incurred, the family home was
not yet constituted or even
registered.
Clearly,
petitioners'
alleged family home, as constituted
by their father is not exempt as it
falls under the exception of Article
243 (2).

Manacop vs. CA

GR No. 104875, November 13,

1992

The latter filed a complaint

for the recovery for the sum of
money with a prayer for preliminary
attachment against the former.
Consequently,
the
corresponding
writ
for
the
provisional remedy was issued
which triggered the attachment of a
parcel of land in Quezon City owned
by
the
Manacop
Construction
President, the petitioner.
The latter insists that the
attached property is a family home
having been occupied by him and
his family since 1972 and is
therefore exempt from attachment.
ISSUE:
WON the subject property is indeed
exempted from attachment.

HELD:
The residential house and lot of
petitioner became a family home by
operation of law under Article 153

of the Family Code. Such provision

does not mean that said article has
a retroactive effect such that all
existing
family
residences,
petitioners included, are deemed to
have been constituted as family
homes at the time of their

occupation prior to the effectivity of

the Family Code and henceforth, are
exempt from execution for the
payment of obligations incurred
before the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 3, 1988. Since
petitioner incurred debt in 1987, it

preceded the effectivity of the Code

and his property is therefore not
exempt form attachment.
The petition was dismissed by SC.