SPOUSES ARACELI OLIVA-DE MESA, et al. v.

SPOUSES CLAUDIO D. ACERO, JR., et al. G.R. No.

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.