98. Olivia-De Mesa vs. Acero, Jr.
G.R. No. 185064
January 16, 2012
FACTS: The petitioners, Araceli Oliva-De Mesa and Ernesto S. De Mesa, are challenging the
CA's decision. Petitioners bought a plot of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan. On the relevant property, the
petitioners built and lived in a house. A year later, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio Acero. Since
the cheque issued by petitioners was dishonored by the bank, Acero requested cash. But Spouses De
Mesa didn't pay prompting Acero to file a B.P. 22 suit with the RTC. The RTC cleared the Spouses but
fined them P100,000 plus interest. A levy writ was issued on the property. Petitioners filed to nullify
Acero's TCT, claiming the relevant property is a family residence, exempt from execution under the
Family Code, and hence could not be levied for execution purposes. RTC denied the claim. CA upheld
RTC's ruling.
ISSUE: Is the subject property, as a family home, may be subject to execution in this case?
HELD: Yes, the subject property may be subject to execution in this case.
A family residence is exempt from execution, according to the Court, and should have been
asserted at the time of levy or within a reasonable period thereafter.
It wasn't until the respondents filed an unlawful detainer action, or about four years after the auction
sale, that petitioners claimed the subject property was a family residence, therefore free from execution.
The petitioners' failure to assert their entitlement within a reasonable time period presupposes that they
have abandoned, renounced, or declined to assert it. The exemption under Article 153 of the Family
Code is a personal entitlement, and it is not the sheriff's responsibility to suppose or elevate the subject
property's status as a family residence. It appears to be an afterthought and artifice that cannot be
countenanced without doing the respondents injustice and depriving them of the rewards of the
decision granted in their favor. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.