Spouses De Mesa took out a loan from Spouses Acero and used their property as collateral. When they failed to repay the loan, the property was auctioned off and acquired by Spouses Acero. Spouses De Mesa then claimed the property was exempt from execution as their family home under the Family Code. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that while a family home is generally exempt from execution, Spouses De Mesa failed to invoke and prove the property's status as a family home at the time of the levy or within a reasonable time thereafter. By not asserting their right in a timely manner, Spouses De Mesa were deemed to have waived or abandoned their claim that the property was exempt as a family
Original Description:
Family
Original Title
De Mesa, Et Al. v. Spouses Claudio d. Acero, Jr., Et Al. g.r. No. 185064, 16 j
Spouses De Mesa took out a loan from Spouses Acero and used their property as collateral. When they failed to repay the loan, the property was auctioned off and acquired by Spouses Acero. Spouses De Mesa then claimed the property was exempt from execution as their family home under the Family Code. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that while a family home is generally exempt from execution, Spouses De Mesa failed to invoke and prove the property's status as a family home at the time of the levy or within a reasonable time thereafter. By not asserting their right in a timely manner, Spouses De Mesa were deemed to have waived or abandoned their claim that the property was exempt as a family
Spouses De Mesa took out a loan from Spouses Acero and used their property as collateral. When they failed to repay the loan, the property was auctioned off and acquired by Spouses Acero. Spouses De Mesa then claimed the property was exempt from execution as their family home under the Family Code. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that while a family home is generally exempt from execution, Spouses De Mesa failed to invoke and prove the property's status as a family home at the time of the levy or within a reasonable time thereafter. By not asserting their right in a timely manner, Spouses De Mesa were deemed to have waived or abandoned their claim that the property was exempt as a family
185064, 16 January 2012, SECOND DIVISION (Reyes, J.) 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. FACTS: Claudio D. Acero Jr., being the highest bidder, acquired the ownership of a parcel of land formerly owned by petitioners Araceli Oliva-De Mesa and Ernesto S. De Mesa (Spouses De Mesa). The property was sold at a public auction after Spouses De Mesa failed to pay the loan they secured from Acero. Thereafter, respondents Acero and his wife Runa (Spouses Acero) leased the subject property to its former owners who then defaulted in the payment of the rent. Unable to collect the rentals due, Spouses Acero led a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Spouses De Mesa. The MTC ruled in Spouses Aceros favor. In their defense, Spouses De Mesa led a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to nullify TCT No. T-221755 (M) on the basis that the subject property is a family home which is exempt from execution under the Family Code, and thus, could have not been validly levied upon for purposes of satisfying their unpaid loan. However, the RTC dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) afrmed the RTCs Decision. ISSUE: Whether or not the family home is exempted from execution HELD: Petition DENIED. Indeed, the family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories that last during ones lifetime. It is likewise without dispute that the family home, from the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneciaries actually resides therein, is generally exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment. The family home is a real right, which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases. However, this right can be waived or be barred by laches by the failure to set up and prove the status of the property as a family home at the time of the levy or a reasonable time thereafter. For all intents and purposes, the negligence of Petitioners De Mesa or their omission to assert their right within a reasonable time gives rise to the presumption that they have abandoned, waived or declined to assert it. Since the exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal right, it is incumbent upon the De Mesa to invoke and prove the same within the prescribed period and it is not the sheriffs duty to presume or raise the status of the subject property as a family home.