This document summarizes a case involving the levy of a property owned by petitioners to satisfy a judgment award. The main issue is whether the levied property was validly exempt as the family home. The court ruled that the levy was valid because petitioners failed to prove that the property was judicially or extra-judicially constituted as the family home as required by law.
This document summarizes a case involving the levy of a property owned by petitioners to satisfy a judgment award. The main issue is whether the levied property was validly exempt as the family home. The court ruled that the levy was valid because petitioners failed to prove that the property was judicially or extra-judicially constituted as the family home as required by law.
This document summarizes a case involving the levy of a property owned by petitioners to satisfy a judgment award. The main issue is whether the levied property was validly exempt as the family home. The court ruled that the levy was valid because petitioners failed to prove that the property was judicially or extra-judicially constituted as the family home as required by law.
inspired by the game the CLASH OF CLAN :) anyway, my digest is your digest.
:) enjoy reading :) comments are
really appreciated :) Saturday, February 1, 2014 JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS vs. DANILO PANGILINAN G.R. No. 185920 July 20, 2010 Facts: Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against E.M. Ramos Electric, Inc., a company owned by Ernesto M. Ramos, the patriarch of herein petitioners. The labor arbiter ordered Ramos and the company to pay the respondents back-wages, separation pay, 13th month pay & service incentive leave pay. The decision became final and executory so a writ of execution was issued which the Deputy Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) implemented by levying a property in Ramos name situated in Pandacan.
Alleging that the Pandacan property was the family home, hence, exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment award, Ramos and the company moved to quash the writ of execution. Respondents argued that it is not the family home there being another one in Antipolo and that the Pandacan address is actually the business address. The motion was denied and the appeal was likewise denied by the NLRC. Issue: Whether or not the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid. Ruling: Yes. For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made as to what law applies based on when it was constituted and what requirements must be complied with by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such privilege. Hence, two sets of rules are applicable. If the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or before August 3, 1988, then it must have been constituted either judicially or extra-judicially as provided under Articles 225, 229-231 and 233 of the Civil Code. Meanwhile, Articles 240 to 242 governs extrajudicial constitution. On the other hand, for family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, there is no need to constitute extra judicially or judicially, and the exemption is effective from the time it was constituted and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries under Art. 154 actually reside therein. Moreover, the family home should belong to the absolute community or conjugal partnership, or if exclusively by one spouse, its constitution must have been with consent of the other, and its value must not exceed certain amounts depending upon the area where it is located. Further, 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 August 3, 1988. In both instances, the claim Search Search This Blog Share this on Facebook Tweet this View stats (NEW) Appointment gadget >> Share It Clash of Minds View my complete profile About Me ! 2014 (63) " September (5) ! February (47) CEBU CONTRACT ORS CONSORTIU M CO. vs. COURT OF APPEA... ARTURO BORJAL a.k.a. ART BORJAL and MAXIMO SOLIVEN... JOSEB.L. REYES, in behalf of the ANTI-BASES COALIT... SOCIALWEATH ER STATIONS, INCORPORA TED and KAMAHALAN ... LEOPITA vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON BAGATSING, ... Blog Archive 1 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Posted by Clash of Minds at 5:27 PM Labels: 2010, case digest, civil law, G.R. No. 185920 July 20, JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS vs. DANILO PANGILINAN for exemption must be proved. In the present case, since petitioners claim that the family home was constituted prior to August 3, 1988, or as early as 1944, they must comply with the procedure mandated by the Civil Code. There being absolutely no proof that the Pandacan property was judicially or extra judicially constituted as the Ramos family home, the law protecting the family home cannot apply thereby making the levy upon the Pandacan property valid. +1 Recommend this on Google Enter your comment... Comment as: Google Account Publish Publish
Preview Preview No comments: Post a Comment Share View stats Facebook Share HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES AURELIO AND ESPERANZA BAL... RURAL BANK OF STA. MARIA, PANGASINA N vs. THEHONOR A... CORAZON G. RUIZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSUELOT ... MARIANO T. LIM, JAIME T. LIM, JOSE T. LIM, JOVITAT... UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATI ON vs.HEIR... RITA SARMING, et. al vs. CRESENCIO DY, et alG.R. N... EPIFANIA DELA CRUZ, substituted by LAUREANA V. ALB... CONRADOCAR MELO vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES a... PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUIS TAMPAL, DOMINGO ... GENEROSOES MEA and ALBERTO ALBA vs. JUDGE JULIAN B... GENEROSOES MEA and ALBERTO ALBA vs. JUDGE JULIAN B... RICARDOL. MANOTOC, JR. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, H... RICARDOC. SILVERIO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ... NARCISOALVA REZ vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... PABLITO TANEO,JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and... FLORANTE F.MANACOP vs. COURT OF APPEALS and E & L ... MARY JOSEPHINE GOMEZ and EUGENIA SOCORRO C. GOMEZ- S... SPOUSES AUTHER G.KELLEY, JR. and DORIS A. KELLEY v... josef vs santos JOSE MODEQUILL Ovs. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA FRANCISCO. .. JUANITA TRINIDADRA MOS vs. DANILO PANGILINAN G... CECILIO MENDOZAvs . THE HONORABL E COURT OF APPEALS,... G.R. No. 123298 Nove mber 27, 2003PEOPLE OF THEPHI... G.R. No.162052 January 13, 2005ALVIN JO... NICANOR T. SANTOSvs. COURT OF APPEALS, CONSUELA O T... G.R. No. 144463 January 14, 2004SENATO R... Evangeline Ladongavs. People of the PhilippinesG R ... Adonis Aradillosand Albino Galabo vs. Court of App... G.R. No. 181701 January 18, 2012PEOPL.. . G.R. No. 191721 January 12, 2011PEOPL.. . G.R. No. 189328 February 21,2011PEO PLE OF THEPH... People of thePhilippines vs. Reynaldo Villanueva y... INTHE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF:... ESTEBANMOR ANO, CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN vs. HON... HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROO... " January (11) Total Pageviews 6 1 3 6 1 3 Simple template. Powered by Blogger.