Persons (Manacop vs CA)
2
PERSONS and FAMILY RELATIONS digests Manacop vs CA Facts: Petitioner Florante Manacop and his wife purchased a residential lot with a bungalow located in Commonwealth, Quezon City. Private respondent E&L Mercantile, Inc. filed a complaint against petitioner and FF Manacop Construction Co., Inc because of indebtedness. Petitioner and his company entered into a compromise agreement that they will immediately pay the respondent as soon as they can. Petitioner failed to pay his obligation, thus, respondent filed a motion for execution. The sheriff then levied petitioner’s properties to satisfy the judgment debt. This includes the property in Commonwealth. Petitioner and his company filed a motion to quash the alias writs of execution and alleged that the Commonwealth property is exempted because this is a family home; this was denied by the lower court. The petitioners elevated it to the Court of Appeals but it affirmed the trial court’s decision. Issue/s: Whether or not the Commonwealth property is exempted from the execution. Held: Not all existing family residences are deemed to be family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the family code and are exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before its effectivity. Manacop and his family were already residing in the United States which makes the commonwealth property no longer their family home. The law requires that a beneficiary or any family member occupies the house to make it into a family home. Therefore, the property in question is not exempted from the execution. Petition is dismissed.
Transcript of Persons (Manacop vs CA)
PERSONS and FAMILY RELATIONS digests
Manacop vs CA
Facts:
Petitioner Florante Manacop and his wife purchased a residential lot with a bungalow located in Commonwealth, Quezon City. Private respondent E&L Mercantile, Inc. filed a complaint against petitioner and FF Manacop Construction Co., Inc because of indebtedness. Petitioner and his company entered into a compromise agreement that they will immediately pay the respondent as soon as they can. Petitioner failed to pay his obligation, thus, respondent filed a motion for execution. The sheriff then levied petitioner’s properties to satisfy the judgment debt. This includes the property in Commonwealth. Petitioner and his company filed a motion to quash the alias writs of execution and alleged that the Commonwealth property is exempted because this is a family home; this was denied by the lower court. The petitioners elevated it to the Court of Appeals but it affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the Commonwealth property is exempted from the execution.
Held:
Not all existing family residences are deemed to be family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the family code and are exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before its effectivity. Manacop and his family were already residing in the United States which makes the commonwealth property no longer their family home. The law requires that a beneficiary or any family member occupies the house to make it into a family home. Therefore, the property in question is not exempted from the execution. Petition is dismissed.
