Dear PAO,

Last year, I obtained a favorable judgment in an illegal dismissal case that I filed against my former employer. The monetary award amounted to One Million Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,300,000). However, by the time the writ of execution was issued and the sheriff had begun enforcing the same, my former employer had already cleared out his bank accounts. The only property in his name the sheriff was able to find is a condominium unit with an assessed value of approximately Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000) at the time of purchase in 2018. Upon issuance of the notice of levy, however, my former employer moved for the lifting of the same on the ground that the property subject of execution constitutes a family home — albeit the same is currently being leased, and is thus exempt from execution. Is he correct?

Kai

Dear Kai, Article 152 of the Family Code of the Philippines defines family home as one “constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family[.] [It] is the dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated.”

In general, a family home, constituted as such, shall be exempt from forced sale or attachment, save for the following instances: 1) for nonpayment of taxes; 2) for debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home; 3) for debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and 4) for debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen, and others who have rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building. (Article 155, Family Code of the Philippines)

The claim for exemption from levy and execution must be “backed with evidence showing that indeed, the home (i) was duly constituted as a family home, (ii) was constituted jointly by the husband and wife or by an unmarried head of a family, (iii) was resided in by the family (or any of the family home’s beneficiaries), (iv) forms part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter’s consent, or property of the unmarried head of the family; and (v) has an actual value of Php300,000.00 in urban areas, and Php200,000.00 in rural areas.” (Cesar D. Taruc v. Angelina D. Maximo, et al., GR 227728, Sept. 28, 2022, Ponente: Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr.)

Stated differently, a claim for exemption from execution on the ground that the property is a family home must be properly alleged and proven. After all, the claim “is not a magic wand that will freeze the court’s hand and forestall the execution of a final and executory ruling.” (Felicitas L. Salazar v. Remedios Felias, GR 213972, Feb. 5, 2018, Ponente: Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr.)

In your case, it may not be amiss to state that the condominium unit subject of the execution does not qualify as a family home, so as to be exempted from execution. First, the concept of residency vis-à-vis a claim for exemption from execution for being a family home requires actual occupancy thereof, either by the owner, or by any of its beneficiaries. The occupancy must be real or actually existing, which is unlikely, given that the condominium unit in question is currently the subject of a lease agreement. Second, considering that the assessed value of the subject property is distinctly higher than that imposed under Article 157 of the Family Code, only the value equivalent to Php300,000.00, if situated in rural areas, and Php200,000.00, if situated in urban areas, shall be exempt from execution.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]