Let’s go to the family home. First would be Art.

150 on what the family relations include, the purpose of

which is Art. 151 that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear
from a verified complaint or partition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but
the same have failed. Because the failure of petitioner who allege in a complaint that there was this
earnest efforts could mean the dismissal of the petition pursuant to the second sentence of Art. 151.
This was the holding of the court in the case of Guerrero. However in the very recent case of Romero v
Singson, it ceases to be a ground for the immediate dismissal on the part of the court. Actually, the court
have held in the particular case that it is merely a waiver, that defendant will not raise the defect of the
absence, cause there was absence of allegation that the court said it is tantamount to the waiver of the
right of the respondent to invoke the absence of earnest efforts toward a compromise, so that’s the
latest decision of the court in the case of Romero v Singson but of course even of the parties to the case
are those mentioned in Art 150 but under the ff. cases there is no need to allege earnest efforts so the
first would be, these are those that cannot be the subject of compromise or amicable settlement, so we
have the civil status of persons, aside from that, we have the validity of marriage or legal separation, the
grounds for legal separation, future support in jurisdiction of courts and of course future legitime. But
these are exclusions where there’s no need to allege earnest efforts. These are the exclusions where
there’s no need to allege earnest efforts. These are the exclusions, at hindi ito yung “cannot be the
subject” because one is different from the other. So what are those excluded from the requirement.
Number 1 will be of course if the relationship in Art. 150 (1) is not the one that is the legal relationship
meaning they are not validly married, then there is no need to allege earnest efforts. Number 2 is if it
included therein is a stranger. A stranger would be a sister-in-law or a brother-in-law so there is no need
to allege earnest efforts because the presence of a stranger. And this was enunciated by the Supreme
Court in the case of Hiyas Savings Bank, then another is special proceedings because the term ‘suit’
would refer to civil cases, so in all these instances there’s no need for the complainant to allege earnest
efforts and this also cannot be a ground for the motion of dismissal of the defendant due to the absence
of the allegation. Now we go to the family home, questions? Yes mr. Bajao?

- Maam in the case of Romero v Singson the SC said that it was the waiver of one of the parties
because they failed to –
- The defendant
- Ah, the defendant maam, failed to –
- In fact, this can be cured during the trial if the other party will not objet. Remember the case of
______, yes, there was a failure to object.
- So when should the motion be dismissed?
- At the time you filed for the answer, that would be one of your positive defenses, affirmative
defenses that you could raise
- So Maam, the waiver the defendant files his answer in the case of
- Yes withourt raising the issue in the answer, So instead of filing an answer, you move, you file
for a motion for the dismissal of the petition. You don’t file an answer, although, you can use
that in the defense. Don’t ask me what’s an affirmative defense. It will be part of your rules on
procedure. You have any other questions? Just say that it is a waiver. Period. Pursuant to the
case of *Maglagay lagay kayo ng mga kung ano ano diyan ha* if you want to qualify, do not start
 with ‘it depends’. You can start with suppose it was a property registered in one of the spouses,
there was no showing as to when the money was source, so how will you answer it? And the
wife is claiming that that is her exclusive property because title thereto is registered solely in her
name. Without qualifying, how will you start your answer? *chatters* How will you start your
answer beh? It is a qualification that you do not answer with ‘it depends’. *distinct murmuring*
- Article 116 of the Family Code provides… that property is acquired during the marriage whether
registered in name of one or both spouses is presumed to belong to the conjugal property
unless the contrary is proved. And what is the best proof that it belongs exclusively to the
owner-spouse is pursuant to number 9 of Article number 1,2,3 the last. The source of the money
that was used in a particular case of the property. So if she can prove that the money that was
used in the purchase of the property solely is source from her funds so that would be her
exclusive property, so otherwise Mr. Biter, the presumption shall stand under Art. 116.
- Okay so we’ll go now to the family home. Now is there a family home in common-law
relationships or marriages that are void? YES there is a family home even in common-law
relationships because they have also dependents di ba? While their children are illegitimate,
selective diay ang law? So what happens to the equal protection of laws of the Constitution? So
there is still a family home. So it shall be constituted on the house and the lot in which the house
is constructed and from the time that it is occupied as a family residence then it is already
granted the benefit of Art 153 that it is exempt from execution for sale or attachment and
Of the person constituting the family home shall continue as such for 10 years or as long as
there is a minor beneficiary residing therein, remember the case of Patricio v Dailo III the three
requisites that must be complied with so the first would be easily *…* the beneficiary must
actually be residing in the family home but the residency is not required to be continuous for as
long as what is required is the intention of returning. So that’s not cease to be a family home for
as long as there’s the intention of returning but there can be no family home if the portion of
the house is devoted to the business or any other form because the entire house must be
dedicated as a family home. So absence of that would mean that it cease to be a family home
and of course Art 154 for the beneficiaries. Can an illegitimate child be the beneficiary of the
family home? May an illegitimate child be a beneficiary? Of course the law does not require that
the relationship be legitimate and then what are those instances that the family home is not
exempt from the execution or sale or attachment? 155, so under this particular situation
suppose there was nonpayment of taxes and the only property available to be attached is the
family home. Must the judgment creditor who is the State comply with the requirement under
160? Or any of those causes mentioned in Art 155? There is _____ of complying first with the
requirement under 160? Ano yung requirement under 160? *distinct murmuring* So first give
the 300K or 200K to the judgment debtor whichever is applicable ha. Baka sa answer naman
ninyo “to gove first the 300K or 200K whichever is applicable” *SO there is no need which is
different for the need under 160 because that would refer to obligations other than in Art 155
so that would be falling under 168 in fact the judgment creditor must prove to the court that the
value of the family home exceeded the maximum provided for in Art 157 and of course I said
that there is an option. The first 300 or 200 shall first be given, …. The amount that will be given
to the judgment creditor is the excess of the proceeds from the auction sale so remember the
 case of Bell Sr. and the reason why the court denied the writ of execution aside from the fact
that it is family home it was able to prove that the value did not exceed the amount provided for
in Art 157 the basis of which is the ruling of the lower court that the value is not more than what
is provided for in Art 157 and that it is exempted from execution. So despite the improvement,
you have to determine the improvement whether it is voluntary or involuntary so when there is
involuntary improvement then it does not warrant execution or attachment of the family home.
Because the only ground that it will be attached is the voluntary improvement and exceeded the
value provided for in art 157 so you go the requisites enumerated by the Supreme Court in, now
going back to that Dario. Modequillo v Taneo so unlike that in the CC that it is required that the
family home must be constituted either judicially or extrajudicially, the FC does not require
pertaining constitution for as long as it is occupied as a family residence but in the cases of
Modequillo and Taneo, both obligations were already due and demandable and thus there was
constitution on the part of Taneo, it was merely an afterthought actually in the judgment debtor
because he had registered the constitution after the obligation has become due and
demandable. And moreover in this particular case the land which the house was constructed
was owned by a different person. Of course in Cabang v Pasay there is propriety of the levy of
the execution because the land is owned by another person and in fact the issue of the
ownership has already been long decided by the Supreme Court so they could not defeat, In the
case of de mesa v acero, it should be the person, or the beneficiary who has invoke that the
house is a family home not the sheriff, it’s not the obligation of the sheriff. And there can only
be one family home. There is no retroactivity of the provision on Family home. You read the
decision of the court in the case of Modequillo v Breva because this was one of the issues raised
by the lawyer of Modequillo claiming that there is retroactive application of the provisions of
the Family Home pursuant to Art 156 but how did the SC ruled on that argument? That the
provisions of Art 162 is given prospective application and that it shall only apply prospectively to
existing from the one establish prior to the effectivity of the FC where it is no longer required to
be constituted whether judcually or extrajudically. Questions?
- In cases in which the person who has multiple properties. How does the court decide which one
will be the family home…..
- If you were Pacquiao and you have several houses which of those houses will be considered as
the family home? *chatters*
- It is where that family has that intention of returning because those houses that were occupied
when there is school is considered as temporary home of the children but during Christmas
break, semestral break, summer, you would return in the house in the province that is the
family home because you can already defeat the law when you say family home man naming
ito, ay hindi family home din naming yan. Di pwede.
- Mr Abpi: What if kailangan ng judicial or extrajudicial execution, what if after the consititution of
the family home, ….. nilevy nap o siya ng sheriff, I iled during the FC, will it be accepted?
- You constituted already di ba so that would already prevent the execution or attachment, the
fact that you consitituted it. The law does not even require tht there must be judicial. It can have
the Family home extra judicially, all you have to do is go to the lawyer and that lawyer will
execute the necessary documents.
- Question: upon the dissolution of marriage by reason of death, yung question about 1 year or 6
months. Answer ni Maam is 1 year.
- Nice: Under 155 (2) if ginamit ang (family home) in real estate mortgage as a form of
encumbrance, kailangan pa ba ng consent ng majority of the beneficiaries? Yes if the
encumbrance happened when it is already constituted as a family home. So it can be used as a
defense, if ever the parents use it as a mortgage then gamitin ng creditor ang art 155?
Iforeclose? Yes because that would be void like in the case of Bell it becomes an unsecured loan,
it becomes merely a simple obligation. *obligations and contracts chuchu*
- Question: Art 148 (2) *san mapunta yung share?* the forfeiture there is he’s the one in bad
faith. If no forfeiture then his share would be his share that is when there’s no prejudice as to
the rights of the children. Basta pag Leg Sep, entitled pa rin ang children sa shares. But the wife
has no more share bc liquidation of property regime.
- Soph: *Servacio* property was dissolved prior to the effectivity of the FC, CPG dissolved during
the effectivity of the FC? On what law would govern: Go back to 105: the determining point
would be would there be vested rights that would be prejudiced.
- So there would be creditors that would receive upin the death of one of the spouses, no
retroactive application cause there would be resulting prejudice, *it would affect the creditors
- Question: 148 suppose the guilty party is validly married, forfeiture or accrue ang term na
gamitin? Forfeiture would apply pursuant to 147. And if there would be no children that would
accure immediately remember the case of Palang, * bsta magwagi yung legal*
- Metrobank question: about the share chuchu that it will still be covered in 144 it’s just that PI is
not a means under the CC in terminating marriage but are they capacitated to enter marriage,
under the FC or under the CC, of course. The only ground in terminating marriage is PI.
Remember that at the time they celebrate marriage even if the parties are both PI tha marriage
is still valid.
- Sales: 159 re: if the head of the family dies, 10 years ang period or for as long as there is a minor
beneficiary. Sabi ni maam pwede na partition agad agad if in legal age na ang children.
- Question: Spouses filed cases of adultery against each other, will the CPG be liable? Yes unless
the suit is found to be malaicious, groundless. Pag groundless, groundless talaga, cannot be
charged against the CPG. Suppose you filed an adultery case against the wife and the wife was
acquitted, can the wife charge it against the CPG, YES.
- Read Malilin cause it’s instructive.