Family home

Modequillo vs. Breva185 SCRA 766Facts:On January 29, 1988, a judgment was rendered by the Court of Appeals entitled "Francisco Salinas, etal. vs. Jose Modequillo, et al.”The said judgment having become final and executory, a writ of execution was issued by the RTC of Davao City to satisfy the said judgment on the goods and chattels of the defendants Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay at Davao del Sur. The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land located at Davao del Sur registered inthe name of defendant and a parcel of agricultural land located at Malalag, Davao del Sur. A motion to quash and/or to set aside levy of execution was filed by defendant Jose Modequillo alleging therein that the residential land located at Poblacion Malalag is where the family home is built since 1969 prior to the commencement of this case and as such is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment under Articles 152 and 153 of the Family Code except for liabilities mentioned in Article 155 thereof, and thatthe judgment debt sought to be enforced against the family home of defendant is not one of those enumerated under Article 155 of the Family Code. An opposition thereto was filed by the plaintiffs.Issue:Whether or not a final judgment in an action for damages may be satisfied by way of execution of a family home constituted under the Family Code.Ruling:Under the Family Code, a family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as required in the Civil Code. If the family actually resides in the premises, it is, therefore, a family home as contemplated by law. Thus, the creditors should take the necessary precautions to protect their interest before extending credit to the spouses or head of the family who owns the home. In the present case, the residential house and lot of petitioner was not constituted as a family home whether judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code. It became a family home by operation of law only under Article 153 of the Family Code.

Manacop vs. CA277 SCRA 941Facts:Petitioner Florante F. Manacop and his wife Eulaceli purchased residential lot with a bungalow. Private Respondent E & L Merchantile, Inc. filed a complaint against petitioner and F.F. Manacop Construction Co., Inc. before the RTC of Pasig, Metro Manila to collect indebtedness. Instead of filing an answer, petitioner and his company entered into a compromise agreement with private respondent. The trial court rendered judgment approving the aforementioned compromise agreement. It enjoined the parties to comply with the agreement in good faith. Private respondent filed a motion for execution which the lower court granted. However, execution of the judgment was delayed. Eventually, the sheriff levied on several vehicles and other personal properties of petitioner. These chattels were sold at public auction for which certificates of sale were correspondingly issued by the sheriff. Petitioner and his company filed a motion to quash the alias writs of execution and to stop the sheriff from continuing to enforce them on the ground that the judgment was not yet executory. Private respondent opposed the motion. The lower court denied the motion to quash the writ of execution and the prayers in the subsequent pleadings filed by petitioner and his company. Finding that petitioner and his company had not paidtheir indebtedness even though they collected receivables, the lower court held that the case had become final and executory. It also ruled that petitioner's residence was not exempt from execution as it was not duly constituted as a family home, pursuant to the Civil Code.Issue:Whether or not a writ of execution of a final and executory judgment issued before the effectivity of the Family Code be executed on a house and lot constituted as a family home under the provision of Family Code.Ruling: The petition is denied for utter lack of merit. It does not mean that Articles 152 and 153 FC have a retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the FC and are exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the FC. Art. 162 simply means that all existing family residences at the time of the effectivity of the FC, are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the FC.

TANEO, JR. VS. CA (304 SCRA 308)PATRICIO VS. DARIO III (507 SCRA 438)CABANG VS. BASAY (582 SCRA 172)

Presumption of legitimacy

Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Joanne Diaz

G.R. No. 171713, Dec. 17, 2007 Facts: - Nov 1993 – Rogelio and Jinky got acquainted, and the friendship blossomed into love. - Jinky however, was already married to Hasegawa Katsuo, a Japanese national, in spite of this, the lovers lived together out of which Joanne Diaz was born on Feb 25, 1998 - Rogelio initially recognized Joanne as his, only to abandon the family on Sept 1998, Jinky thereafter files a complaint - Judgment rendered in favor of Jinky , Rogelio files a new motion and is granted - RTC again rules for Jinky given the Rogelio‘s admission that he was the one who shouldered hospital bills during Joanne‘s birth and that on some instances he continued visiting Jinky after the birth of Joanne - Rogelio goes to the Court of Appeals, during the pendency of the trial, however he dies, and is substituted by the Estate of Rogelio Ong. - CA remands the case to the RTC for DNA analysis to finally determine the paternity of Joanne, hence the petition

Issue: W/n the court erred in remanding the case for DNA analysis despite the fact that said analysis is no longer feasible given that Rogelio Ong is dead Held: No, decision of the appellate court is affirmed. - Case discusses DNA testing again, see Herrera vs Alba. - The new rules on DNA testing allows for the application of DNA testing for as long as biological samples of Rogelio Ong is present o Biological samples – any organic material originating from the person‘s body, even if found on inanimate objects - Thus, even if Rogelio is dead, biological samples may be available and used for DNA testing - As held in Tecson vs Comelec: ―Any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to‖

Presently, DNA testing has evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering, the Court therefore reiterates its stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity

IN THE Matter of Adoption of Stephanie Garcia 454 SCRA 541

2000: Petitioner Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child, Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia She was born on June 26, 1994 Her mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia He prays that upon adoption, her name will be Stephanie Nathy Garcia Catindig RTC: Granting the adoption and petition to change her name ONLY to Stephanie Nathy Catindig. Petitioner files a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration regarding the surname, Garcia as her middle name. RTC: denies petiton Hence, the case at bar. Petitioner submits that trial court erred in depriving Stephanie of a middle name as a consequence of adoption. There is no law prohibiting an adopted child from having a middle name. Customs grant every Filipino to have a middle name as his/her mother‘s surname A middle name is a part of a name of a person Rights of an adopted child to bear a proper name should not be violated It would help Stephanie avoid the stigma of her illegitimacy Her using ―Garcia‖ is not opposed by either family OSG agrees with petitioner on three grounds: FC 189 makes it necessary since Stephanie still maintains a filiation with her natural mother as an intestate heir of he latter No law prohibiting such Customary for every Filipino.. - - Issue: May and illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name? - - Held: YES. Petition is GRANTED. - - Ratio: The use of a person‘s surname is for practical and legal purposes, it is NECESSARY The name of an individual has two parts, the given name and the surname. The use of the surname is fixed by law under Articles 364-380 of the Civil Code The law is SILENT as to the use of a middle name. However in Art 375(1) it is considered when there is identitiy of names and surnames between ascendants and descendants. The law is notably silent with regard to an adopted child‘s middle name. OSG correctly points out Art. 189 of the FC with regard to filiation required as an intestate heir. The underlying intent of adoption is in favor of the adopted child. RA 8552 It is shown that she is very close to both her parents and she lives with her mother There should be liberal construction of adoption statues in favor of adoption NCC 10 provided that ―in case of doubt in the interpretation….it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.‖