PERSONS GAYON V GAYON F: July 31, 1967- Pedro Gayon filed a complaint against spouses Silvester and Genoveva

Gayon allegin that said spouses sold land to Pedro Gelera

I: WON failure to show earnest efforts by petitioner and respondents to resolve the 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 between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest effors toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to te limitations 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) between parent and child, 3) among other ascendants and their descendants, 4) among brothers and sisters Mrs. Gayon (Genoveva) is the sister in law of Pedro, the plaintiff, whereas her children 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 the complaint in court. WAINWRIGHT V VERSOZA F: Margaret Wainright Versoza and three minor children: Jose, Charles and Virginia filed a complaint for 1,500 monthly support against Jose Ma. Versoza, their dad. Said complaint arose from abandonment without providing for their support and maintenance of illicit affairs with another woman. Jose contends that the claim is premature--> Art. 222 of the Civil Code provides that earnest efforts must first be had to resolve the issues before a complaint can be filed against spouses. RTC dismissed the complaint.--> no showing that earnest efforts have been exerted 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 which makes compromise agreements upon the following invalid: 1) civil status of persons, 2) validity of marriage or legal separation, 3) any ground 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 on future support is proscribed, then the conclusion is that an attempt at compromise of future support and failure thereof is not a condition precedent to the 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 compromise must first be held before suits can be entertained. MAGBALETA V GONONG F: Rufino Magbaleta, his wife Romana Magbaleta and Susan Baldovi filed a petition praying for a preliminary injunction against the orders of Judge Gonong that denied the motion to dismiss filed against them by Catalino Magbaleto, Rufino's brother. 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 his representative. She countered b ysaying that she had bought the same from the spouse Rufino and and Romana. Catalino did not allege in the information filed against Rufino that earnest efforts toward compromise had been made before filing the complaint I: WON case must be dismissed because of non compliance with Art. 222 of the Civil 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 before litigation ensues within a family, this is not a prerequisite for the maintenance of an 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 by Susana Baldovi, a third party to the case.

TRIBIANA V TRIBIANA F: 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 corpus filed 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 1996 but got married only on October 1997. April 1998- Lourdes filed for petition of Habeas Corpus against Edwin for her daughter Khriza Mae. She contends that she had been deprived of lawful custody 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 a compromise were made before the suit was filed. (TAKE NOTE: HE'S CONTENDING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED AND NOT THAT NO EFFORTS WERE TRIED TO ARRIVE AT A COMPROMISE) Lourdes opposed--> provided copy of Certification to File Action from the Barangay. RTC denied Edwin's motion to dismiss. CA affirmed the dismissal. I: WON noncompliance of Lourdes to allege compliance with Art 151 of the FC should have dismissed the petition for HC? H: No. Lourdes attached a certification to File from the Barangay which Edwin does not dispute. This effectively established that the parties tried to compromise but were unsuccessful in their efforts. Given that the failure is a mere noncompliance to allege, the proper solution is not an outright dismissal but an amendment. Besides, the Local Government Code provides that Barangay certification is not necessary where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty, calling for habeas corpus proceedings. HIYAS SAVINGS V ACUNA F: Nov. 2000- Alberto Moreno, private respondent filed with RTC a complaint against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., his wife Remedios, spouses Felipe and Maria Owe and Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage.

Argues the following: he did not sign or execute any contract of mortgage for Hiyas, Remedios conspired with the other litigants made it appear that he signed the 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 the Family Code. There are no allegations that earnest efforts have been made to a compromise between Alberto and Remedios. RTC denied motion to dismiss--> earnest efforts are not required in cases involving parties who are strangers to the family. I: WON cases involving third party litigants who are strangers to the family need not 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 be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper. In other words, Art. 151 is only applicable when the suit is exclusively between or among family members. It follows also, that this defense can only be invoked by a 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 John Nabor Arriola (respondent)- son with first wife, and Vilma nad Anthony Arriolasecond wife and other son. Feb 2004- RTC ordered parcel of land left by Fidel Arriola be divided equally (1/3 per person) among his heirs. Parties failed to agree on how to divide the property and so Vilma and Anthony proposed to sell it through action. John agreed but refused to include the house standing on the subject land. Vilma and Anthony filed a motion to allow the auction of the subject land. It was allowed 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 partition but this shall not take effect immediately in view of the suspensive proscription imposed 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 time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, the family home continues to be 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 deemed constituted as a family home by the deceased and Vilma from the moment they began occupying the same as family residence 20 years back. It being settled that the subject house is the family home of the deceased and his heirs, the same is shielded from immediate partition under Art. 159 of the Family Code. Art. 159 provides that the family home shall continue despite the death of one or both 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 finds compelling reasons therefor. PATRICIO V DARIO F: Marcelino Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife Perla Patricio and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and Marcelino G. Dario III He left a residential house and a pre-school building in Cubao, Marc and Marcelino 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 should continue despirte the death of one or both spouses as long as there is a minor beneficiary thereof. --> The son of the private respondent was a minor beneficiary of the family home. I: WON partition of the family home is proper where on of the co-owners refuse to accede 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 or an unmarried person who is the head of the family, parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal support. Three requisites to be a beneficiary: 1) must be among the relationships enumerated 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 such time, if there is still a minor beneficiary then the home shall still be preserved until the beneficiary becomes of age. Grandson of Dario, satisfies the first requirement as he is the descendant of the deceased. He also satisfies the second requisite. The third requisite however is not properly satisfied because the grandson cannot demand support from his paternal grandmother as his parents are still capable of supporting him. HONRADO V CA F: December 1997- Premium Agro-Vet Products, Inc filed with RTC a complaint for sum 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 petition with the RTC of Calamba City for the judicial constitution of a parcel of land and the house thereon as the family home. RTC (first court) ordered the payment of Premium. Sheriff levied upon the property 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 family home. 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 teh time of the levy or within a reasonable time thereafter. I: WON property may not be executed due to the declaration of RTC Calamba that is a family home? H: No. Art 153 of the FC provides claim for exemption should be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption. Case at bar, petitioner was properly notified about the auction of his property, he did not bother to object to the levy and the projected sale. He even vacated the property after the said sale.

CABANG V BASAY F: 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 title was issued. They did not occupy the property. Cabangs had been on continuous, open, peaceful and adverse possession of the same parcel of land since 1956 up to present. They were awarded Lot No. 7778 and occupied the property they are presently occupying upon belief that it was Lot 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 effectively barred by laches. CA reversed the RTC. SC remanded the case to RTC for further 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 writ of execution. It was denied because the house is the "family home" of the Cabangs. 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 be part of either the ACP or the CPG or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter's consent or on the property of the unmarried head of the family. FORTALEZA V LAPITAN F: Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza obtained a loand from Rolando and Amparo Lapitan in the amount of 1.2 million subject to 34% interest per annum. Fortaleza executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their residential house and lot in Los Baos, 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 property under 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 or attachment. However, Art. 155(3) allows forced sale of a family home for debts secured 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 not set up and prove to the Sheriff such exemption. They are thus estopped from pursuing a later claim. RAMOS V PANGILINAN F: Pangilinan et al filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against a company owned by Ernesto Ramos, E.M. Ramos Electric Inc. Labor arbiter ordered Ramos and the company to pay the respondents' back wages, 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, exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment award. Respondents contend that it is the family home there being another one in Antipolo and that the Pandacan address is actually the business address. CA ruled that the Pandacan property was not exempt from execution for Art. 153 which states that "the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence" did not mean that the article has 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 FC. I: WON levy on the Pandacan property was valid? H: Yes.

General rule--> family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment. It cannot be seized by creditors upon special cases. NCC- a residence needs extra-judicial or judicial constitution before it can be a family home. FC- constitution is automatic upon the take over of the family. Family home should belong to the absolute community or CPG or if exclusively owned, its constitution must be with the consent of the other. Moreover, the debts incurred for which the exemption does not apply as provided under Art. 155 for which the family home is made answerable must have been incurred after the effectivity of the FC. Case at bar, Pandacan property was consituted in 1944. Following the requirements 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 FC provision exempting the family home from being levied upon. EQUITABLE V OJ MARK F: Oscar and Evangeline Martinez, respondents, obtained loans from petitioner Equitable PCI Bank. They used their condo in Valle Verde 5 as security for the said loan. Martinezes defaulted. They offered a corresponding lot instead of the condo to settle 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 the bank is in bad faith by not informing them of the denial or disapproval to pay via dation 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 auctioning it off while the case for the annulment of the mortage agreement is still being tried? H: No. The supposed family home is owned and registered by the respondent corporation, OJ Mark Trading. Secondly, even if the said corporation is a family corporation, 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 when the debtors are in default of the payment of their obligation. Martinezes clearly stipulate in their credit greement that the mortgagee is authorized 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 respondents themselves have admitted that they failed to comply with the documentary requirements imposed by the petitioner. It is clear therefore from the very start that the said property is not exempt from being executed as it is not the family home. Assuming arguendo that it is, the petitioners cannot still be enjoined from pursuing actions against the property of the 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 ACERO F: Claudio Acero acquired ownership of a parcel of land formerly owned by spouses Araceli and Ernesto de Mesa. Property was sold at a public auction. De Mesas--> failed to pay the loan they secured from Acero. After acquiring ownership, Acero leased the property to de Mesas. De Mesas failed to pay the rent and defaulted. Acero filed ejectment suit against de Mesas at the MTC. MTC ordered for the ejectment. Spouses de Mesa appealed--> subject property was a family home which is exempt 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 its beneficiaries actually resides therein is generally exempt from execution, forced sale 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 the property as a family home at the time of the levy. Since the exemption in Art. 153 is a personal right, it is incumbent upon the debtor 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 or declined to assert it.