CESAR TARUC vs ANGELINA MAXIMO
GR 227728
FACTS:
Angelina and several others filed a labor complaint against Taruc. The LA ruled in favor of Angelina et al and issued an Alias Writ of Execution for the recovery of the money. A levy was effected on a piece of land under Taruc’s name. Taruc filed a motion to lift levy since the subject land is his family home and therefore exempt from levy and execution, it was dismissed.
Later on, he filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. CA denied it for lack of merit. It held that since Taruc alleged that he had been occupying the subject land as part of his family home since May 1988, the provision of the civil code shall apply. It was denied based on his failure to prove that the land failed to comply with the requirements of constitution of family home under the civil code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject land is exempt from levy and execution?
RULING:
No. there is nothing in the records or pleadings submitted by Taruc that state that he had been using the subject land as part of his family home as early as May 1988. It bears underscoring that for family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, there is no need to constitute them extrajudicially or judicially30 in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. In this regard, the Court holds that the applicable provisions are those provided under the Family Code and not the provisions of the Civil Code.
This issue shall be resolved on the basis of whether Taruc successfully established compliance with the requirements of exemption provided under the Family Code. Generally, a family home is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment according to Article 155 of the Family Code. A family home is deemed constituted in the house and land from the time it is actually occupied as a family residence. Case law explicitly mandates that the occupancy of the family home must be actual in order to exempt it from execution.
Taruc’s contention that the evidence he submitted is enough for his claim is without merit. We see nothing in the Building Permit and utility bills which prove that the subject land complied with the requirements for exemption from levy and execution provided under the Family Code. Taruc failed to adduce evidence that the subject land complied with the requisites that would exempt it from levy and execution under the Family Code.
Taruc merely alleged that the subject land was part of his family home and presented only the Building Permit and utility bills to prove his claims for exemption, leaving the rest of the burden to herein respondents, the LA, and the NLRC to prove otherwise. We reiterate the rule that the right to exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor. The duty, therefore, rests upon the movant to prove beyond cavil that the family home complied with the requirements for exemption provided under the law.
It is not sufficient for the claimant to merely allege that such property is a family home. Whether the claim is premised under the Old Civil Code or the Family Code, the rule still remains that the claim for exemption must be set up and proved by the movant, which Taruc failed to do. The Court, therefore, rules that the subject land is not exempt from levy and execution.