Modequillo v.

Breva
G.R. No. 86355
May 31, 1990
Gancayco
Reynes
Jose
Modequillo
petitioners
responden Hon. Augusto Breva, Fracisco Salinas, Floriper Abellan-Salinas, Juanito Culan-Culan and
ts Deputy Sheriff Fernando Plata

summary Pursuant to a writ of execution arising from a money judgment that was final
and executor, the sheriff levied on Modequillos two parcels of land, one
residential and one agricultural. He assailed the levy on the both alleging that
the residential land was where his family home was located and that the
agricultural land was still of public domain.

The Court ruled that the family home was constituted by operation of law only
upon the effectivity of the Family Code in Aug. 3, 1988. The cause of action and
the judgment was incurred prior to Aug. 3, 1988. Thus, the property is not
exempt from execution as a family home.

facts of the case

1. [Jan. 29, 1988] A judgment was rendered by the CA in Salinas v. Modequillo (pertaining
to damages arising from a vehicular accident which took place on Mar. 16, 1976) in
favor of Salinas and against Modequillo for more than PHP67,000. The judgment
became final and executory; thus, a writ of execution was issued by the Davao RTC to
satisfy the said judgment.
2. [July 7, 1988] The sheriff levied on (1) a parcel of residential land located in Davao del
Sur and (2) a parcel of agricultural land located in Davao del Sur. Both were registered
in the name of Jose Modequillo.
3. Modequillo filed a motion to quash and/or to set aside levy of execution. He alleged
that the residential land is where is family home is built since 1969 prior to the
commencement of the case. As such, it is exempt from execution, forced sale, or
attachment under Arts. 1521 and 1532 of the Family Code. Furthermore, the judgment
debt is not among the exceptions in Art. 155, 3 enumerating the exceptions to Arts. 152
and 153.
a. He also alleged that the agricultural land sought to be levied was still part of the
public domain as his application was not approved by the proper government
agency.

1 FAM. CODE, art. 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife
or by an unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling house where they and their family
reside, and the land on which it is situated.
2 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 as hereinafter provided and to
the extent of the value allowed by law.
3 Art. 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except: (1) For nonpayment
of taxes;

(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have rendered service
or furnished material for the construction of the building.

4. The RTC denied Modequillos motion. His subsequent motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied.

issue/held/ratio

W/N the residential land in question is exempt from execution as a family home NO,
it is not.
Modequillos residential house and lot was not constituted as a family home whether
judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code. It only became a family home by
operation of law under Art. 153 of the Family Code upon the effectivity of the
same on Aug. 3, 1988.
Art. 1624 of the Family Code 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. The provision
does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect.
This case does not fall under the exemptions from execution.
o The liability which was the basis of the judgment arose or was incurred at the time
of the vehicular accident on Mar. 16, 1976 and the money judgment arising
therefrom was rendered by the CA on Jan. 29, 1988.
o Both of these preceded the effectivity of the Family Code on Aug. 3, 1988.
[As to the agricultural land, the RTC was correct in ruling that the levy shall be on
whatever rights Modequillo might have on the land.]

4 Art. 162. The provisions of this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are
applicable.