BONDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATOR
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
LSPU College of Law
ENRICO S. EULOGIO and NATIVIDAD V. EULOGIO, Petitioners,
vs.
PATERNO C. BELL, SR., ROGELIA CALINGASAN-BELL, PATERNO WILLIAM BELL, JR., FLORENCE FELICIA VICTORIA BELL, PATERNO FERDINAND BELL III, and PATERNO BENERAÑO BELL IV, Respondents.
G.R. No. 186322 July 8, 2015
SERENO, CJ:
FACTS:
The respondents Bell siblings were the unmarried children of respondent Spouses Paterno C. Bell and Rogelia Calingasan-Bell. In 1995, the Bell siblings lodged a complaint at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City for annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages against petitioners Enrico S. Eulogio and Natividad Eulogio.
The complaint sought the annulment of the contract of sale executed by Spouses Bell over their residential house and lot, as well as the cancellation of the title obtained by petitioners by virtue of the Deed. The RTC granted respondents’ prayers and ordered the Register of Deeds of Batangas City to cancel the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the defendants and to reconstitute the TCT as “family home” of the plaintiffs Bell siblings and Spouses Bell. However, the RTC declared Spouses Bell liable to petitioners in the amount of P1 million plus 12% interest per annum.
Spouses Bell later brought the case to the Court to question their liability to petitioners in the amount of P1 million plus interest. On June 9, 2004, the RTC issued a writ of execution as a result of which respondents’ property covered by the newly reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title. Upon motion of the respondents, the trial court ordered the lifting of the writ of execution on the ground that the property was a family home.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the lifting of the writ of execution. Invoking Article 160 of the Family Code, they posted that the current market value of the property exceeded the statutory limit of P300,000 considering that it was located in a commercial area, and that Spouses Bell had even sold it to them for P1 million.
The appellate court ruled that the RTC Decision, which had become final and executor, only declared respondents’ house and lot as a family home. Since the issue of whether it may be sold in execution was incidental to the execution of the aforesaid Decision, there was as yet no res judicata.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents’ family home may be sold on execution under Article 160 of the Family Code.
HELD:
Unquestionably, the family home is exempt from execution as expressly provided for in Article 153 of the Family Code.
It has been said that the family home is a real right that is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment. The great controlling purpose and policy of the Constitution is the protection or the preservation of the homestead – the dwelling place. A houseless, homeless population is a burden upon the energy, industry and morals of the community to which it belongs. No greater calamity, not tainted with crime, can befall a family than to be expelled from the roof under which it has been gathered and sheltered. The family home cannot be seized by creditors except in special cases.