gayon- de mesa

7/29/2019 Gayon- De Mesa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gayon-de-mesa 1/11

PERSONSGAYON V GAYONF:July 31, 1967- Pedro Gayon filed a complaint against spouses Silvester andGenoveva Gayon allegin that said spouses sold land to Pedro Gelera

I: WON failure to show earnest efforts by petitioner and respondents to resolvethe dispute shall be considered a bar to further proceed with the case?

H: No.

Art 222 of CIvil Code provides, "no suit shall be filed or maintained betweenmembers of the same family unless it should appear that earnest effors toward acompromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to telimitations in article 2035.

Members of the family is to be construed in light of Art. 217 which states:

"Family relations shall include those: 1) between husband and wife, 2) betweenparent and child, 3) among other ascendants and their descendants, 4) amongbrothers and sisters

Mrs. Gayon (Genoveva) is the sister in law of Pedro, the plaintiff, whereas herchildren are his nephews and or nieces.

The relationship between Pedro and Mrs. Gayon are not contained in Art. 217,

thus it is not mandatory for them to seek a compromise before filing thecomplaint in court.

WAINWRIGHT V VERSOZAF:Margaret Wainright Versoza and three minor children: Jose, Charles and Virginiafiled a complaint for 1,500 monthly support against Jose Ma. Versoza, their dad.

Said complaint arose from abandonment without providing for their support andmaintenance of illicit affairs with another woman.

Jose contends that the claim is premature--> Art. 222 of the Civil Code providesthat earnest efforts must first be had to resolve the issues before a complaint canbe filed against spouses.

RTC dismissed the complaint.--> no showing that earnest efforts have beenexerted to settle the case amicably before the suit was filed.

I: WON Art. 222 of the Civil Code applies in this case?



H: No. Art 222 is subject to the limitations in Art. 2035 of the Civil Code whichmakes compromise agreements upon the following invalid:1) civil status of persons, 2) validity of marriage or legal separation, 3) anyground for legal separation, 4) future support, 5) jurisdiction of courts, 6) future

legitime.

Case at bar revolves on the right to future support and since compromise onfuture support is proscribed, then the conclusion is that an attempt atcompromise of future support and failure thereof is not a condition precedent tothe filing of the present suit.

Right to support cannot be: renounced, transmitted to third persons,compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor.

Article 222 must be read subject to Art 2035, thus in cases involving

support of children, it is not necessary that earnest efforts to compromisemust first be held before suits can be entertained.

MAGBALETA V GONONGF:Rufino Magbaleta, his wife Romana Magbaleta and Susan Baldovi filed a petitionpraying for a preliminary injunction against the orders of Judge Gonong thatdenied the motion to dismiss filed against them by Catalino Magbaleto, Rufino'sbrother.

Catalino filed a suit to have a parcel of land registered in the name of Rufino.

Catalino alleges that SUsana is trying to take possession of said land from hisrepresentative. She countered b ysaying that she had bought the same from thespouse Rufino and and Romana.

Catalino did not allege in the information filed against Rufino that earnest effortstoward compromise had been made before filing the complaint

I: WON case must be dismissed because of non compliance with Art. 222 of theCivil Code?

H: No. No grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Gonong.

While it is necessary that every effort towards compromise be made beforelitigation ensues within a family, this is not a prerequisite for the maintenance ofan action whenever a stranger to the family is a party therein.

Case at bar, the ownership of the land in question was also being claimed bySusana Baldovi, a third party to the case.



TRIBIANA V TRIBIANAF:

Case is a review on certiorari contesting the denial of Court of Appeals denying

the petition of Edwin Tribiana's motion to dismiss the petition for habeas corpusfiled against him by Lourdes Tribiana (--> Petition for writ of H.C. was granted)

Edwin and Lourdes are husband and wife who have lived together since 1996but got married only on October 1997.

April 1998- Lourdes filed for petition of Habeas Corpus against Edwin for herdaughter Khriza Mae. She contends that she had been deprived of lawfulcustody of Khriza who was then only 1 yr and 4 months of age.

Edwin opposed the motion on the ground that Art. 151 of FC has not been

complied with. He said that Lourdes failed to allege that earnest efforts at acompromise were made before the suit was filed. (TAKE NOTE: HE'SCONTENDING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED AND NOT THAT NOEFFORTS WERE TRIED TO ARRIVE AT A COMPROMISE)

Lourdes opposed--> provided copy of Certification to File Action from theBarangay.

RTC denied Edwin's motion to dismiss. CA affirmed the dismissal.

I: WON noncompliance of Lourdes to allege compliance with Art 151 of the FCshould have dismissed the petition for HC?

H: No. Lourdes attached a certification to File from the Barangay which Edwindoes not dispute. This effectively established that the parties tried to compromisebut were unsuccessful in their efforts.

Given that the failure is a mere noncompliance to allege, the proper solution isnot an outright dismissal but an amendment.

Besides, the Local Government Code provides that Barangay certification is notnecessary where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty,calling for habeas corpus proceedings.

HIYAS SAVINGS V ACUNAF:Nov. 2000- Alberto Moreno, private respondent filed with RTC a complaintagainst Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., his wife Remedios, spouses Felipeand Maria Owe and Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for cancellation ofmortgage.



Argues the following: he did not sign or execute any contract of mortgage forHiyas, Remedios conspired with the other litigants made it appear that he signedthe contract, he couldn't have signed the contract because he was abroad.

Hiyas filed a motion to dismiss--> Alberto failed to comply with Art. 151 of theFamily Code. There are no allegations that earnest efforts have been made to acompromise between Alberto and Remedios.

RTC denied motion to dismiss--> earnest efforts are not required in casesinvolving parties who are strangers to the family.

I: WON cases involving third party litigants who are strangers to the family neednot allege that earnest efforts have been made to a compromise?

H: Art. 151 of the FC does not apply to cases where a stranger is a party to the

suit. The law no longer makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts bemade towards a compromise before the action can prosper.

In other words, Art. 151 is only applicable when the suit is exclusively between oramong family members. It follows also, that this defense can only be invoked bya party who is a member of that same family.

ARRIOLA V ARRIOLA

F: Case concerns the heirs of Fidel Arriola who dies and is survived by JohnNabor Arriola (respondent)- son with first wife, and Vilma nad Anthony Arriola-second wife and other son.

Feb 2004- RTC ordered parcel of land left by Fidel Arriola be divided equally (1/3per person) among his heirs.

Parties failed to agree on how to divide the property and so Vilma and Anthonyproposed to sell it through action. John agreed but refused to include the housestanding on the subject land.

Vilma and Anthony filed a motion to allow the auction of the subject land. It wasallowed by the CA.

I: WON family home is covered by the judgment of partition issued by the CA?

H: Qualified No! SC agree that subject house is covered by judgment of partitionbut this shall not take effect immediately in view of the suspensive proscriptionimposed under Art. 159 of the FC.

The house is a family home within the contemplation of the provisions of the FC:



Art. 153- the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the timeit is occupied as a family residence. From the time of its constitution and so longas any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, the family home continues tobe such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except..."

The subject house as well as the specific portion of the subject land are deemedconstituted as a family home by the deceased and Vilma from the moment theybegan occupying the same as family residence 20 years back.

It being settled that the subject house is the family home of the deceased and hisheirs, the same is shielded from immediate partition under Art. 159 of the FamilyCode.

Art. 159 provides that the family home shall continue despite the death of one orboth spouses for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor

beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court findscompelling reasons therefor.

PATRICIO V DARIOF:Marcelino Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife Perla Patricio andtheir two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and Marcelino G. Dario III

He left a residential house and a pre-school building in Cubao, Marc andMarcelino III extrajudicially settle the estate of Dario.

Perla and Marc informed Marcelino III that they want to partition the property.The latter refused. Petitioners Perla and Marc filed a petition before the RTC.

RTC ordered the partition of the property. CA affirmed. --> the family hom shouldcontinue despirte the death of one or both spouses as long as there is a minorbeneficiary thereof. --> The son of the private respondent was a minorbeneficiary of the family home.

I: WON partition of the family home is proper where on of the co-owners refuse toaccede on the ground that a minor beneficiary still resides in the said home?

H: Art. 154 enumares the beneficiaries of the family home: husband and wife oran unmarried person who is the head of the family, parents, ascendants,descendants, brothers and sisters, whether relationship be legitimate orillegitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head ofthe family for legal support.

Three requisites to be a beneficiary: 1) must be among the relationshipsenumerated in Art. 154, 2) live in the family home, 3) dependent for legal support



upon the head of the family.

The rule therefore is: preserve the house for 10 years upon death, after suchtime, if there is still a minor beneficiary then the home shall still be preserved untilthe beneficiary becomes of age.

Grandson of Dario, satisfies the first requirement as he is the descendant of thedeceased. He also satisfies the second requisite. The third requisite however isnot properly satisfied because the grandson cannot demand support from hispaternal grandmother as his parents are still capable of supporting him.

HONRADO V CAF:

December 1997- Premium Agro-Vet Products, Inc filed with RTC a complaint forsum of money against Jose Honrado who was doing business under the name

and style of J.E. Honrado Enterprises.

On the pendency of this case, Spouses Jose and Andrerita had filed a petitionwith the RTC of Calamba City for the judicial constitution of a parcel of land andthe house thereon as the family home.

RTC (first court) ordered the payment of Premium. Sheriff levied upon theproperty and was sold at a public auction. Honrado opposed.

RTC of Calamba (second court) declared the property a family home.

Honrado petitioned that the house is exempt from execution as it is the familyhome. RTC did not grant the petition.

Deed of conveyance was issued. Honrado filed with the CA assailing the same,again on the ground that the house is a family home.

CA denied the petition. --> Honrado failed to assert his claim for exemption at tehtime of the levy or within a reasonable time thereafter.

I: WON property may not be executed due to the declaration of RTC Calambathat is a family home?

H: No. Art 153 of the FC provides claim for exemption should be set up andproved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure todo so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption.

Case at bar, petitioner was properly notified about the auction of his property, hedid not bother to object to the levy and the projected sale. He even vacated theproperty after the said sale.



CABANG V BASAYF:

Deceased Felix Odong was registered owner of a lot in Zamboanga del Sur in

1966. He however never took possession of the lot.

Mr. and Mrs. Basay et al bought the property from Odong in 1987. A new titlewas issued. They did not occupy the property.

Cabangs had been on continuous, open, peaceful and adverse possession of thesame parcel of land since 1956 up to present. They were awarded Lot No. 7778and occupied the property they are presently occupying upon belief that it wasLot No. 7778.

In 1992, Cabangs discovered they were actually occupying Lot No. 7777

Cabangs filed a suit, and they lost because their rights have been effectivelybarred by laches. CA reversed the RTC. SC remanded the case to RTC forfurther proceedings.

Lot was surveyed, assessed to have a value of 21k. Basays offered to pay,Cabang rejected the offer. Bec. of the non-acceptance, Basays filed for the writof execution. It was denied because the house is the "family home" of theCabangs.

I: WON a property is a duly constituted family home of the petitioners Cabang?

H: NO. While family home is exempt from execution, for the exemption to apply,it must be constituted on property owned by the persons constituting it. It must bepart of either the ACP or the CPG or of the exclusive properties of either spousewith the latter's consent or on the property of the unmarried head of the family.

FORTALEZA V LAPITANF: Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza obtained a loand from Rolando and AmparoLapitan in the amount of 1.2 million subject to 34% interest per annum.

Fortaleza executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their residential houseand lot in Los Baños, Laguna.

Fortalezas defaulted. Property was levied upon and was sold at a public aution.

Raul Lapitan and wife Rona won the bid. Certificate of sale was issued.Prescription period for redemption expired, thus Lapitan's registered the propertyunder their names.



Fortaleza's refused to vacate and surrender possession of the property.RTC ordered issuance of writ of possession.CA affirmed the decision.

I: WON right of redemption can be exercised for family homes even when the

same had already prescribed?

H: No. As a rule the family home is exempt from execution, forced sale orattachment. However, Art. 155(3) allows forced sale of a family home for debtssecured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution.

Case at bar, Fortalezas voluntarily executed the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.Hence they cannot claim that their property cannot be executed.

Even assuming that their property is exempt from forces sale, Fortalezas did notset up and prove to the Sheriff such exemption. They are thus estopped from

pursuing a later claim.

RAMOS V PANGILINANF:

Pangilinan et al filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against a company ownedby Ernesto Ramos, E.M. Ramos Electric Inc.

Labor arbiter ordered Ramos and the company to pay the respondents' backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.

Writ of execution was issued, property of Ramos was levied upon.

Ramos alleged that the Pandacan property was the family home, hence, exemptfrom execution to satisfy the judgment award.

Respondents contend that it is the family home there being another one inAntipolo and that the Pandacan address is actually the business address.

CA ruled that the Pandacan property was not exempt from execution for Art. 153which states that "the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot fromthe time it is occupied as a family residence" did not mean that the article has aretroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to havebeen constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to theeffectivity of the FC.

I: WON levy on the Pandacan property was valid?

H: Yes.



General rule--> family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable andfree from attachment. It cannot be seized by creditors upon special cases.

NCC- a residence needs extra-judicial or judicial constitution before it can be afamily home.

FC- constitution is automatic upon the take over of the family. Family homeshould belong to the absolute community or CPG or if exclusively owned, itsconstitution must be with the consent of the other.

Moreover, the debts incurred for which the exemption does not apply as providedunder Art. 155 for which the family home is made answerable must have beenincurred after the effectivity of the FC.

Case at bar, Pandacan property was consituted in 1944. Following therequirements laid out by the NCC, and there being no proof that there is judicial

or extra-judicial constitution, the said property cannot be protected by the FCprovision exempting the family home from being levied upon.

EQUITABLE V OJ MARKF:

Oscar and Evangeline Martinez, respondents, obtained loans from petitionerEquitable PCI Bank. They used their condo in Valle Verde 5 as security for thesaid loan.

Martinezes defaulted. They offered a corresponding lot instead of the condo tosettle the mortgage. They failed to submit the documents.

Equitable PCI then proceeded with the extra-judicial foreclosure of the property.

Respondents opposed and filed a TRO against the Bank. They contend that thebank is in bad faith by not informing them of the denial or disapproval to pay viadation in payment.

RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction. CA sustained the said orders.

I: WON petitioners may be enjoined from foreclosing the property and auctioningit off while the case for the annulment of the mortage agreement is still beingtried?

H: No. The supposed family home is owned and registered by the respondentcorporation, OJ Mark Trading. Secondly, even if the said corporation is a familycorporation, it is owned by the said juridical entitiy and not by the Martinezes.

Writ of Preliminary Injunction also cannot be granted if it would enjoin an



extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage as the foreclosure is deemed proper whenthe debtors are in default of the payment of their obligation.

Martinezes clearly stipulate in their credit greement that the mortgagee isauthorized to foreclose the mortgaged properties in case of default by the

mortgagors.

There is no bad faith on the acts of the petitioners as the respondentsthemselves have admitted that they failed to comply with the documentaryrequirements imposed by the petitioner.

It is clear therefore from the very start that the said property is not exempt frombeing executed as it is not the family home. Assuming arguendo that it is, thepetitioners cannot still be enjoined from pursuing actions against the property ofthe respondents bec. Art. 155 (3) of the FC allow forced sale of a family home"for debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such

constitution".

DE MESA V ACEROF:Claudio Acero acquired ownership of a parcel of land formerly owned by spousesAraceli and Ernesto de Mesa.

Property was sold at a public auction. De Mesas--> failed to pay the loan theysecured from Acero.

After acquiring ownership, Acero leased the property to de Mesas. De Mesasfailed to pay the rent and defaulted.

Acero filed ejectment suit against de Mesas at the MTC. MTC ordered for theejectment.

Spouses de Mesa appealed--> subject property was a family home which isexempt from execution under the FC.

RTC dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed.

I: WON property is exempt from execution?

H:

It is true that family home, from the time of constitution and so long as any of itsbeneficiaries actually resides therein is generally exempt from execution, forcedsale or attachment.

It is a real righ, inalienable and is free from attachment. However, this right can



be waived or be barred by laches by failure to set up and prove the status of theproperty as a family home at the time of the levy.

Since the exemption in Art. 153 is a personal right, it is incumbent upon thedebtor to invoke and prove that the subject property is his family home within the

prescribed period, otherwise laches will set in.

Case at bar, de Mesas failed to invoke their right at the appropriate time.Therefore, it seems as if they had already abandoned such right, waived ordeclined to assert it.

gayon- de mesa

Documents