Case Summary (G.R. No. 97898)
Statement of the Case
This case examines whether a writ of execution of a final and executory judgment issued prior to the Family Code's effectivity can be executed against a property deemed a family home under the provisions of said Code. Petitioner Florante F. Manacop contests the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's orders allowing execution against his property.
Facts
Petitioner and his wife purchased a residential lot with an existing bungalow in 1972. Initially, they were ordered to pay an indebtedness to E & L Mercantile, Inc., which they sought to resolve through a compromise agreement in 1986. Following defaults and subsequent motions for execution, the trial court denied petitioner's motions to quash, leading to the appellate review. The core argument focused on the nature of the property as a family home and whether it could be shielded from execution under the Family Code, which was enacted in August 1988.
Issue
The central issue is whether the execution of a final judgment and writ issued before the Family Code can be enforced on a property constituted as a family home under said Code.
The Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, determining that the requirements of the Family Code regarding family homes do not possess retroactive effect and that petitioner's property was not duly constituted as a family home. The Court clarified that the prior applicable law, the Civil Code, required judicial or extrajudicial action to establish a family home, which was not followed by petitioner.
No Novel Issue
The Court noted that the issue was not new, referencing previous cases involving similar circumstances. The Court emphasized that debts incurred prior to the Family Code's enactment are not protected, thus reaffirming its interpretation of the laws surrounding family homes and executions.
Applicability of Article 155 of the Family Code
Article 155 of the Family Code provides specific circumstances under which a family home is exempt from execution. However, the Court reiterated that as the debts in question were incurred before the Family Code's effectivity, the property did not benefit from execution exemptions as prescribed under that law.
Family Home Constitution and Retroactive Effect
While the Family Code simplifies the process of constituting a family home dependent on actual occupancy, the Court underscored that the Code does not have retroactive application. Consequently, without evidence of proper constitution as a family home prior to the Family Code's enactment,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 97898)
Statement of the Case
- The core issue involves the execution of a final and executory judgment on a property constituted as a family home under the Family Code.
- Petitioner Florante F. Manacop contests the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 18906) dated February 21, 1990, and its Resolution on March 21, 1991, which upheld the trial court's orders for the issuance of writs of execution against him.
- The case arises from a complaint filed by private respondent E & L Mercantile, Inc., against Manacop for an unpaid debt of P3,359,218.45.
The Facts
- On March 10, 1972, Manacop and his wife purchased a residential lot and bungalow in Quezon City for P75,000.00, documented under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 174180.
- On March 17, 1986, E & L Mercantile filed a complaint for debt collection against Manacop and his company.
- Rather than contesting the claim, Manacop entered into a compromise agreement, committing to pay P2,000,000.00 as financial means allowed.
- The trial court approved this agreement on April 20, 1986, mandating good faith compliance.
- A motion for execution was filed by E & L Mercantile on July 15, 1986, granted by the court in September 1986, but execution was delayed, leading to the sheriff levying on personal properties of Manacop.
- On August