finals- the family

8/10/2019 Finals- The Family

1/4

XI. THE FAMILY

A. Members of a Family

Nature and Scope of Family Relations

Art.149, FC: The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basicsocial institution which public policy cherishes and protects.

Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom,

practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized orgiven effect.

Art.150, FC: Family relations include those:

1) Between husband and wife;

2) Between parents and children;

3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and

4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.

Art. 151, FC: No suit between members of the same family shallprosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition

that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that thesame 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.

Sempio-Diy says:

Application of Art 150-151

1. Verified complaints or petition must show that efforts toward

a compromise have failed.

2. Petition or complaint is required to be verifiedas an

assurance of the truth that efforts toward a compromise have

been made, but have failed.

3. Reason for the rule is to avoid or diminish litigationsamong

members of the same family.

4.However, even if the required allegation is made but it appears

at the pre-trial that the same is not true , the case must be

dismissed.

MENDOZA v. CA, 19 SCRA 756 (1967)

Facts:

Luisa Mendoza (respondent in this case) brought a complaint

before the court. Husband claims, no compromise yet, so no

prosper.

Held:

The complaint involved a claim for future support, that under

Art. 2035 of the Civil Code, cannot be the subject of a valid

compromise, and is therefore outside the sphere of Art. 222.

The husband also argues regarding the validity of theirmarriage. However, this also falls under Art. 2035 as not

being the subject of a valid compromise.

MENDEZ V BIONSON & EUGENIA (1977)

Facts

Zoila Mendez and Matilde Bionson with 10 others vs Gumapon and more

Bionsons for the partition of 2 parcels of land in Cebu.

Held

The parties are collateral relatives who are not brothers and sisters.

Only members of the same family are required to exert efforts to arrive

at a settlement before an action is instituted.

Guerrero v RTC, Ilocos Norte (1994)

Facts

Gaudencio Guerrero and Pedro Hernando are brothers-in-law, their

wives are half-sisters. They both claim ownership of a lot.

Held

- Brothers-in-law are NOT members of the same family as enumerated in

Art 151. No earnest efforts toward a compromise are needed.

Hontiveros v RTC, Iloilo City (1999)

FactsComplaint against Gregorio Hontiveros and his wife, Teodora Ayson by

Augusto and Maria Hontiveros. Gregorio-Augusto brothers

Held

Whenever a stranger is a party to a case, Art 151 will NOT apply. The

inclusion of respondent Ayson and Maria Hontiveros is out of ambit of

said article because they do not refer to members of the same familywhich refer to blood-relatives.

Support

Art. 194-208


2/4

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8972

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES TO SOLO

PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN, APPROPRIATING FUNDS

THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 1.Title.- This Act shall be known as the "Solo Parents' Welfare

Act of 2000."

Section 4.Criteria for Support.- Any solo parent whose income in the

place of domicile falls below the poverty threshold as set by the NationalEconomic and Development Authority (NEDA) and subject to the

assessment of the DSWD worker in the area shall be eligible for

assistance: Provided, however, That any solo parent whose income is

above the poverty threshold shall enjoy the benefits mentioned in

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this Act.

Section 6.Flexible Work Schedule.

Section 7.Work Discrimination.

Section 8.Parental Leave.-

Section 9.Educational Benefits

Section 10.Housing Benefits.

LACSON v. LACSON

Facts:

Edward (petitioner) failed to give support to his daughters. He merely

gave meager amounts for school expenses. The mother and the

respondents were forced to rely on their uncle, Noel Daban

Held:

1. The Court held that the respondents ARE entitled for support in

arrears.Art 203: the respondents are entitled to receive support

from the date when a demand for support was made upon him,

which was 1995.

2. The Court held that the uncle is entitled for reimbursement from

the plaintiff. According toArt 207of the Family Code, any third

person may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of

reimbursement from the person obliged to give support.

FUNERALS

Art 305-310

THE FAMILY HOME

Art 152, FC the family home, constituted jointly by husband and wife,

or by an unmarried head of the family, is a) the dwellingwherethe

familyresidesandb) thelandon which it is situated

Art 153Familyhomeconstituteson a house and lot upon time of

occupationas family residence. Family home continues to exist so long

as any of its beneficiariesactually residethere. It is exempt from

execution, forced sale or attachment except as provided by law.

Art 154 The beneficiaries of the Family Home:

1. Husband and Wife, or an unmarried person who is Head of the

Family

2. Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters,

whether legitimate or illegitimate, who are a) living in the

family home and b) who depend upon the Head for support

Art 155 Family Home shall be exempt from forced sale, execution

and/or attachment EXCEPT:1. For non-payment of taxes

2. Debts incurred prior to the constitution of the Family Home

3. Debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after

constitution

4. Debts to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, material

men and other who have aided in construction of the building

Art 156 Family Home must be part of ACP/CPG or Exclusive Property

of one spouse with the others consent or may be constituted by anunmarried head upon his own property.

Property subject to conditional sale on installments, where ownership isreserved to guarantee payment, may be constituted as the Family Home

Art 157 Actual value of Family Home must not exceed:300,000 pesos

in Urban Areas, 200,000 pesos in Rural Areas, or fixed by law

Art 158 the Family Home may be alienated, encumbered, sold,

donated or assignedby the owners thereof, with written consent of the

person constituting the same, the latters spouse, and the majority of the

beneficiaries of legal age. In case of doubt, the Court decides.


3/4

Art 159 Family Home shall continue to exist even after death of

Spouses or of the Unmarried Head, for a period of 10 years or for as long

as there is a minor beneficiary.

The heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling

reasons therefor. This rule applies regardless of who constituted/owns

the Home.

Art 160for creditors not enumerated in Art 155, obtaining judgmentin their favor and having reasonable ground to believe that the Family

Home is worth more than the amount specified in Art 157, the creditor

may apply to the court for an order of sale by execution.

Court shall so order if it finds that the actual value is more than the

maximum allowed by law at the time of constitution.

If increase in value, exceeding maximum allowed by law, is caused by

improvements done by person or persons constituting the home, by

owners of the property, or by any beneficiaries, the same rule shall

apply.

Art 161

For purposes of availing benefits of a Family Home, a person

may constitute or be a beneficiary in only one Family Home

Art 162 This Chapter also governs existing Family Residences insofar

its provisions are applicable

MODEQUILLO V. BREVA

FACTS:

Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay (petitioners)are

ordered by CA to pay jointly and severally Sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land and a parcel of

agricultural land registered in the name of Jose.

The residential land is where the family home is built

since 1969 prior to the commencement of the case and

so it is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment

under Art. 152 and 153, FC.

Judgment debt sought to be enfo rced is not one of

those enumerated under Art. 155, FC.

HELD:

Art. 162, FC only means that all existing family residences at

the time of FCs effectivity are considered family homes and are

prospectively entitled to the benefits of a family home under the FC.

The debt or liability which was the basis of judgment arose at

the time of the vehicular accident (March 16, 1976) and the money

judgment rendered by CA (January 29, 1988). Both preceded the FCseffectivity on Aug. 3, 1988. Thus, the case does not fall under the

exemptions under the FC.

PATRICIO V. DARIO III

FACTS:

Marcelino Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife

(Perla Patricio, petitioner) and his two sons (Marcelino Marc

Dario and Marcelino Dario III, private respondent).

The wife and two sons extrajudicially settled the estate of their

father. Among the properties was a parcel of land with a

residential house and a pre-school building built thereon.

Petitioner and Marc formally advised Dario III of their intentionto partition the subject property and terminate co-ownership.

Dario III refused.

Trial court:ordered partition: 4/6 to Perla, 1/6 to Marc, 1/6 to

Dario III. Dario III filed motion reconsideration but was also

denied..

HELD:

Moreover, Art. 159, FC provides that the family home shall continue

despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head of the

family for a period of 10 years or for as long as there is a minor

beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court

finds compelling reasons therefore. However, the a) minor

contemplated in this article must not only b) reside in the home but

must also be c) dependent on the head of the family for legal

support (as stated in Art. 154, FC).

VENERACION V. MANCILLA

FACTS:

To secure the payment, Elizabeth executed a real estate

mortgage over her residential lot with a residential house

situated thereon.


4/4

HELD:

But it must be proved first that it was indeed a conjugal home

and that their father spent for the acquisition of such. In this case, it was

not proven.

ARRIOLA v ARRIOLA (2008)

SUMMARY: Subject house was built by the decedent on his exclusive

property. Said house has been the residence of petitioners [2nd family]

for 20 years. House is therefore the family home.

This being so, it is shielded from partition under Article 159 of FC [family

home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the

unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years and the heirs

cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons

therefor.] The family home cannot be partitioned this time, even if it

has passed to the co- ownership of the heirs, parties herein.

JOSEF V SANTOS

SUMMARY: Petitioner failed to pay respondent for shoe materials he

brought on credit. Petitioner contends that one of theproperties is the family home and thus exempted from

execution. Court held thatPetition is meritorious;

HELD:NO. The lower courts should have conducted a solemn inquiry

into the nature of the real property after the petitioner has alleged that

the property is their family home. Trial court should have observed the

following procedure:

Determine if the obligation falls under the exceptions under Art.

155, FC

Determine the veracity of petitioners claim that it is a familyhome

If it is already found to be the family home, the Court shoulddetermine

o If the obligation was contracted before/after the

effectivity of FC

o If petitioners spouse is still alive, as well as beneficiaries

o If the petitioner has more than one residence

o Its actual location and value (Art. 157 and 160)

SPOUSES DE MESA V. SPOUSES ACERO

Facts:

Spouses De Mesa filed a new complaint to nullify the title held by

Spouses Acero, stating that their family home stood on the

subject property and it was exempt from being subject to

execution under Art. 153.

.

Ratio:

The settled rule is that the right to exemption or forced sale under

Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal privilege granted to the

judgment debtor and as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff, but

by the debtor himself before the sale of the property at public auction. It

is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that

such property is a family home. This claim for exemption must be set

up and proved to the Sheriff. x x x.

finals- the family

Documents