Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    ANGELES 1 ModequilloVS - Breva

    Uploaded by

    Ezi Angeles
    The sheriff levied on two parcels of land registered under Jose Mondequillo - a residential land where his family home was built in 1969, and an agricultural land that was still considered public land. Mondequillo claimed the residential land was exempt from execution as a family home. The Supreme Court ruled that while the residential land was a family home, it did not fall under the exemption from execution because the debt arose from a 1976 vehicular accident, before the 1988 effectivity of the Family Code exemptions. The agricultural land could only be levied according to whatever rights Mondequillo had.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ANGELES 1 ModequilloVS - Breva

    Uploaded by

    Ezi Angeles
    20 views1 page
    The sheriff levied on two parcels of land registered under Jose Mondequillo - a residential land where his family home was built in 1969, and an agricultural land that was still considered public land. Mondequillo claimed the residential land was exempt from execution as a family home. The Supreme Court ruled that while the residential land was a family home, it did not fall under the exemption from execution because the debt arose from a 1976 vehicular accident, before the 1988 effectivity of the Family Code exemptions. The agricultural land could only be levied according to whatever rights Mondequillo had.

    Original Title

    ANGELES_1_ModequilloVS.Breva

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The sheriff levied on two parcels of land registered under Jose Mondequillo - a residential land where his family home was built in 1969, and an agricultural land that was still considered public land. Mondequillo claimed the residential land was exempt from execution as a family home. The Supreme Court ruled that while the residential land was a family home, it did not fall under the exemption from execution because the debt arose from a 1976 vehicular accident, before the 1988 effectivity of the Family Code exemptions. The agricultural land could only be levied according to whatever rights Mondequillo had.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views1 page

    ANGELES 1 ModequilloVS - Breva

    Uploaded by

    Ezi Angeles
    The sheriff levied on two parcels of land registered under Jose Mondequillo - a residential land where his family home was built in 1969, and an agricultural land that was still considered public land. Mondequillo claimed the residential land was exempt from execution as a family home. The Supreme Court ruled that while the residential land was a family home, it did not fall under the exemption from execution because the debt arose from a 1976 vehicular accident, before the 1988 effectivity of the Family Code exemptions. The agricultural land could only be levied according to whatever rights Mondequillo had.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JOSE MODEQUILLO vs. HON. AUGUSTO V.

    BREVA FRANCISCO SALINAS, FLORIPER ABELLAN-SALINAS,


    JUANITO CULAN-CULAN and DEPUTY SHERIFF FERNANDO PLATA

    GR. No. 86355 | 31 May 1990

    FACTS:

    The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land located at PoblacionMalalag, Davao del Sur on July
    1988, registered in the name of Jose Mondequillo and a parcel of agricultural land located at
    DalagbongBulacan, Malalag, Davao de Sur also registered in the latter’s name. A motion to quash was filed by
    the petitioner alleging that the residential land is where the family home is built since 1969 prior the
    commencement of this case and as such is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Article
    152 and 153 except for liabilities mentioned in Article 155 thereof, and that the judgment sought to be
    enforced against the family home is not one of those enumerated. With regard to the agricultural land, it is
    alleged that it is still part of the public land and the transfer in his favor by the original possessor and
    applicant who was a member of a cultural minority. The residential house in the present case became a family
    home by operation of law under Article 153.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the subject property is deemed to be a family home in as much as it does not fall
    under the exemption from execution. (NO)

    RULING:

    No. The subject property is deemed to be a family home but it does not fall under the exemption from
    execution of the money judgment aforecited.

    Under Article 162 of the Family Code, it is provided that “the provisions of this Chapter shall also
    govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable.” It does not mean that Articles 152
    and 153 of said Code have 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
    and are exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family
    Code. Article 162 simply means that all existing family residences at the time of the effectivity of the Family
    Code, are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home
    under the Family Code. Article 162 does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive
    effect.

    The debt or liability which was the basis of the judgment arose or was incurred at the time of the
    vehicular accident on March 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising therefrom was rendered by the
    appellate court on January 29, 1988. Both preceded the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988.
    Therefore, this case does not fall under the exemptions from execution provided in the Family Code.

    As to the agricultural land, trial court correctly ruled that the levy to be made shall be on whatever
    rights the petitioner may have on the land.

    You might also like