The Family Notes

Mendoza v. CA (1967)
- Cecilio and Luisa married in 1954
- Cecilio moved to the US for studies and to practice
- Luisa filed a complaint alleging
o He abandoned her w/o justifiable cause
o Refuses to provide maintenance and support for her (pregnant)
o Left her w no source of revenue
- Luisa wants maintenance and support since he’s employed in a US hospital
o Earning about 200 dollars monthly
- Cecilio moved to dismiss complaint for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue
o Denied
- 2nd MTD was on grounds of Art 222, NCC
o No suit shall be filed between members of the same family unless no choice subject to
limitations under Art 2035
 He says there is no cause of action
 (No allegations that earnest efforts have been made to reconcile)
- CFI and CA ruled in favor of Luisa

ISSUE
WON Luis’s complaint is valid

HELD
YES
- Art 222 doesn’t apply because it is subject to limitations under Art 2035 which enumerates what are
not subjects of a valid compromise
o Claim for future support is one of those

Mendez v. Bionson (1977)

- 3 cases involved
o 1) Zoila et al filed for action against Maximo et al for partition of 2 parcels of land
 CFI decided in favor of Maximo
 BUT failed to include in the dispositive that Zoila et al should vacate said lands
o 2) Maximo et al filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership for a portion of land
which Zoila refused to deliver
 CFI, in a summary judgment, ordered Zoila to vacate said land
 Zoila’s petitioner was dismissed by CFI
o 3) Zoila assails the summary judgment assigning errors on the interpretation of the decision in
the first case

ISSUE
WON the decision in the first case denied Maximo’s claim of ownership
WON CFI erred in not dismissing Maximo’s case pursuant to Art 222 (that they are members of the same
family)

HELD
NO
- Clearly, Maximo was declared owner of the land in question
o Documentary evidence support Maximo’s testimonial evidence
 Tax declarations and official tax
- Dismissal of counterclaim of respondents cannot affect their rights on 2 parcels of land in question
o Because it only referred to moral damages, rentals and attorney’s fees
- Respondents are the owners and thus they have a right to possess of land and right of actions against
holder/possessor of such in order to recover it

NO
- Maximo et al already exerted diligent effort to arrive at an amicable settlement during the 1st case
- Zoila et al are collateral relatives, not among family members enumerated in CC Art 217

Guerrero v. RTC (1994)

- Guerrero and Hernando are brothers-in-law (married to half sisters)
- Guerrero filed a case against Hernando regarding the ownership of real property
- During the pretrial conference, Judge Luis Bello noted their relationship and gave Guerrero 5 days to
file his motion and amended complaint (to allege that they were close relatives, and that the
 complaint should allege that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made)
- Guerrero moved to reconsider this order
o That since brothers by affinity are not members of the same family, he was not required to
exert earnest effort to compromise
o That Hernando was precluded from raising this issue since he didn’t file a MTD nor assert the
same as an affirmative defense
- MTR was denied
- 5 day period expired
- Judge dismissed the case

ISSUE
WON brothers by affinity are members of the same family contemplated in Art 217(4) and Art 222, NCC
WON absence of an allegation in the complaint that earnest efforts were made is a ground for dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction

HELD
NO
- Brothers in law are not part of the same family (Brothers and sisters whether full or halfblood)

NO
- Attempt to compromise and inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit
between members of the same family
- Its absence is assailable in any stage of the proceeding, even on appeal, for lack of cause of action
- It is not correct that Hernando waived aforesaid defect in failing to move/dismiss/raise such in the
Answer

Hontiveros v. RTC (1999) 


- Gregorio filed to register a parcel of land in Capiz
- Augusto (bro) and wife Maria protested
o Claiming that they were the owners and that they have been deprived of both possession
and income
- Gregorio and Teodora claims
o They werent married
 Gregorio was a widower
 Teodora was single
o Petitioners had failed to alleged earnest efforts were made pursuant to Art 151 FC
- TC ruled in favor of Gregorio
o Though earnest efforts had been alleged, they had not been verified

ISSUE
WON lack of verification required by Art 141 is sufficient ground for dismissal
WON Art 151 is applicable

HELD
NO
- Absence of verification doesn’t affect the jurisdiction of the court over the complaint
o It is merely a formal requirement
o If there is doubt as to the veracity of the complaints, the court may simply order the
correction of unverified proceedings

NO
- Because of the inclusion of Teodora and Maria as litigants, the case cannot be covered by Art 151
- Teodara and Maria don’t fall within these relationships w/ respect to the Hontiveros family and are
considered strangers for the purposes of Art 151

Lacson v. Lacson (2006)

- Edward is marred to Lea and have 2 kids: Maowee and Maonaa
- After Maonaa’s birth in 1976, Edward left conjugal home in Molo
o Forcing Lea and kids to seek shelter and financial assistance elsewhere (1976-1994)
 1 month in Lea’s mother-in-law, Alicia
 Then w/ her mom
 Then w her brother, Noel
- She didn’t badger him for support
o She held onto his promise of doing so in his letter dated Dec 10, 1975
o He simply gave meager amounts for kids’ school expenses
 o It was Lea’s bro who lent a large sum to the family (between 400k-600k)
- Lea, in behalf of her daughters, then filed a complaint against Edward for support before the Iloilo RTC
in 1995
- Edward alleged giving kids sufficient amount to meet their needs
o He explained that his lack of regular income and the unproductivity of the land he inherited,
not his neglect, accounted for his failure to provide regularly
- RTC ruled in favor of the kids and mom
o Ordered Edward to pay support 18 yrs worth in arrears (2.5M)
- CA affirmed RTC
- He argues that he should have to pay for 18yrs because there was no previous extrajudicial or judicial
demand from the respondents, citing Art 203, FC
o Computation for support should only start from 1995 onwards (the date when sisters formally
asked for support by lodging the complaint
orderee
ISSUE
WON he should pay for 18 yrs (1976-1994)
WON Noel is subject to reimbursements for loans he provided for the family’s sustenance
WON the sale by Lea of half if what Edward claims to be his exclusive property (5M) can be considered as
payment for his support in arrears to his kids

HELD
YES
- Edward overlooked the fact that he abandoned his children at their tender yrs and as such couldn’t
demand for support since he was also difficult to get in touch with
o Lea made an extrajudicial demand sometime in 1976 when she came to her mom-in-law’s
house asking for financial support
 Also, Edward even sent a note promising support
YES
- Under Art 207, Noel is entitled to reimbursements
o Edward, the one obliged to give support, didn’t do so
- The set-up constitutes as a quasi-contract (given the juridical relationship between Edward and Noel
(bros-in-law)
o Which is attached w/ an equitable principle enjoining one from unjustly enriching himself at
the expense of another
NO
- There was no showing the property was conjugal/exclusive
o Lea claimed that they separately sold their shares in the property
- In addition, the kids were not parties to the sale
o It was erroneous to assume that they benefited from the proceeds of the property
o To consider that the amount offsets his separate obligation for support in arrears

Gotardo v. Buling (2012)

- 1992 Divina Buling (resp) met Charles Gotardo (pet) at PHL Commercial and Industrial Bank
o Divina was a casual employee; Charles was accounting supervisor
- 1993 Became sweethearts and had Sexual relations in Rodolfo’s (Divina’s uncle) Boarding house
- 1994 Divina got pregnant
o Charles was happy and started to make plans for a wedding
o Charles backed out subsequently
- Divina filed for damages for breach of promise to marry
- 1995 resp gave birth to Gliffze on March 1995 and demanded the pet to give support
o Pet did not answer demand
o Resp filed complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite
- Pet testified:
o They first had sex during August 1994
o She couldn’t have been pregnant for 12 weeks when he was informed of pregnancy on
Sept 1994
- During pendency, respondent was granted Php 2,000 a month

ISSUE: WoN petitioner should be ordered to recognize and provide legal support to Gliffze

HELD: YES
- In Herrera v. Alba, we stressed that there are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional
paternity action that parties have to face:
o a prima facie case,
o affirmative defenses,
o presumption of legitimacy,
 o and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.
- Divina was able to establish a prima facie case
o She had sex with only one person at the time of conception
o Charles did not deny having sex with her (but he states they had sex only on a later date)
- After Divina provided evidence that she had sex with putative father, the burden of evidence shifts to
the putative father.
o Charles was unable to substantiate his allegations of infidelity and promiscuity
- Contradiction in Divina’s testimony was due to misunderstanding
o She was confused as to sex and accepting his love.
o Her former legal counsel did nothing to correct the transcript
- The totality of Divina’s testimony shows that she started sexual relations with Charles in September 1993
- Filiation is beyond question, so support follows as a matter of obligation
o A parent is obliged to support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate
o Support consists of everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation
o Amount of support is variable, but must be in proportion to the resources of the giver and the
necessities of the recipient
o Support may be reduced or increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in
necessities of the recipient and resources of the supporter

Perla v. Baring (2012)

- Mirasol Baring and then minor son Randy filed for support against Antonio
o She says they lived together as common-law spouses for 2 yrs
 As a result, Randy was born 1983
o He abandoned them after landing a job as a seaman
- Antonio sought moral and exemplary damages by way of counterclaim
o He isn’t the father of Randy
o She never was his common-law wife nor treated as such
o Mirasol had been intimidating and pestering him since 1992 with various suits insisting Randy
is his son
- In the trial, it was shown that they’ve had sex and Randy testified that he is the father
- RTC rules in favor of Mirasol
o 5k/month
- CA affirmed
o Based on copies of birth certificate and baptismal certificate

ISSUE
WON Antonio is the father of Randy

HELD
NO
- Rules for establishing filiation are found under Art 172 and 175 FC
- The certificate of live birth has no probative value because he hasn’t signed it
o A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent
evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the
preparation of the said certificate
 The same is for the baptismal certificate
 While a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it
can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the
date specified but not the veracity of the entries w/ respect to the child’s
paternity
- Neither can the Court rule that he is the father for the mere fact that he and Mirasol had sex

Modequillo v. Breva (1990)

- Jan 1988, CA, regarding a vehicular accident in 1976, ordered Modequillo and Malubay to pay tens
of thousands of pesos for compensation and loss of earnings from death, burial expenses,
hospitalization, moral damages, and atty’s fees
o To be taken from their goods and chattels
- July 1988 sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land registered in Modequillo’s name
- He filed a motion to quash the levy
o It was where the family home was built since 1969
o Under Art 152-153 FC is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment
 Except for liabilities in Art 155
 He believes that the judgment debt doesn’t fall under Art 155
- TC denied motion – it was only deemed the family home upon effectivity of the FC in Aug 1988
ISSUE
WON the residential house and lot is exempt from the execution of the judgment debt

HELD
NO
- By operation of law, the residence was deemed as family home only on Aug 1988
o The exception under Art 155 are effective from the time a FH is constituted as such
- However, the accident occurred on 1976 and the judgment became final and executor on 1988,
both before the effectivity of the FC
- Art 152-153 has no retroactive effect
o Not even under Art 162 that states that the same chapter shall govern existing residences
- Nor was the house judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a FH under the CC
o Thus the residential house and lot was not subject to the exception under Art 155

Patricio v. Dario III (2006)

- Marcelino (grandfather) died intestate in 1987
o Survived by his wife and 2 sons
o Left several parcels of land
 Including the land in dispute on which a residential house and a pre-school building
is built
- Perla (widow) and Marcelino II (1st son) wanted to partition the property
o Arguing that the property stopped being the family home in July 5, 1997
 10 yrs after the decedent’s death
- Marcelino III (2nd son) did not
o Arguing that under Art 154, FC the property cannot be partitioned while his minor son
(decedent’s grandson) still resides therein

ISSUE
WON the property can be partitioned given that resp’s son still resides there

HELD
YES
- The grandson is not the decedent’s dependent, so therefore he is not entitled to the benefits under
Art 159 FC
o In order for him to be entitled, 3 requisites must concur
 Relationship enumerated in Art 154 FC
 They live in the family home
 They are dependent for legal support upon the head of the family
- Grandson doesn’t fit the 3rd requisite
o He cannot demand support from paternal grandma if his parents are capable of supporting
him
o Liability to provide support falls on his parents
 Only when they are in default will it fall on granparents

Josef v. Santos (2008)

- Josef bought shoe materials on credit from Santos
- Upon failure to pay, brought a case for collection to Marikina RTC
- RTC ruled in his favor
o Charging Josef 400k with a 12% per annum interest
- Josef’s personal properties were auctioned off
o Including real property, for which Santos was the winning bidder
- Josef questioned the sale of the properties
o Claiming he was insolvent and had no property to answer for the judgment
o Also that the personal properties belonged to his children
o And that the house and lot was his family home
 Thus exempt from execution

ISSUE
WON Santos could seize the real property claimed to be a FH
HELD
CASE REMANDED
- The writs of execution issued in respondent Santos’s favor, as well as the titles obtained through them,
were declared void.
- The trial court was directed to conduct an inquiry into whether the real property was Josef’s family
home.
- Santos was ordered to hold the properties and their proceeds in abeyance while waiting for the
outcome of the inquiry.

The Court held that the trial court failed to determine the truth to petitioner Josef’s allegations. The court must
adhere to the following procedure:

12
1. Determine if petitioner’s obligation to respondent falls under either of the exceptions under Art. 155
of the Family Code;

2. Make an inquiry into the veracity of petitioner’s claim that the property was his family home through
a. Ocular inspection of the premises
b. Examination of the title

c. Interview of members of community where alleged family home is located, to determine
whether petitioner actually resided within its premises
d. Order that photographs of the premises, depositions and/or affidavits of proper individuals /
parties be submitted, or conduct a solemn examination of petitioner, his children and other
witnesses

The respondent must be given the opportunity to cross-examine and present contrary evidence.

3. If the property is found to be the petitioner’s family home, the court should determine:
a. If the obligation sued upon was 
 contracted or incurred prior to the 
 effectivity of the
Family Code; 

b. If the petitioner’s spouse is still alive, and if there are other beneficiaries of 
 the family home;


c. If the petitioner has more than one 
 residence, in order to determine which 
 of them, if any,
is his family home; 

d. Its actual location and value, in order to 
 apply Arts. 157 and 160

Spouses de Mesa v. Spouses Acero (February 2012)

- A parcel of land was registered under Araceli’s name
- De Mesas jointly purchased it on April 1984 (while merely cohabiting)
- House was constructed on property which they occupied as FH after marriage in Jan 1987
- Sept 1988
o De Mesas obtained a loan from Aceros which was secured by a mortgage over subject
property
- When the check bounced, they were acquitted but ordered to pay for said debt
- Writ of execution was issued and sheriff levied upon subject property
o Respondents were the highest bidders
- Resp leased the lands to petitioner and a Juanito
- After failure to pay rent, resp filed action for detainer
- Pet claims the land is theirs

ISSUE
WON pet can stull claim land

HELD
NO
- For FH to be exempt, distinction must be made as to what law applies when it was constituted and
what requirements must be complied w/ by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such
privilege
o FRs before FC need to have been judicially/extrajudicially constituted as FH in order to be
exempt
o Those after FC are automatically FH and thus exempt from the time it was constituted
o FRs that weren’t judicially/extrajudicially constituted as a FH before FC, but were existing
thereafter, are considered FH by operation of law and prospectively entitled to benefits of
 an FH
- However, the exemption must be set up and proved to the sheriff
o Before the sale of the property
o At the time it was levied
o Within a reasonable time thereafter
- The petitioners’ failure to do so bars and estops them from later claiming said exemption
o Right from execution can be waived/barred by laches
- Petitioners allowed a considerable amount of time before claiming such
o It was only filed 4 yrs after the sale
o Negligence/omission to assert right = abandonment, waiver or refusal to assert right

Fortaleza v. Lapitan (2012) 


- Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza obtained a loan from Rolando and Amparo Lapitan
o Pets executed, as security, on Jan 1998, a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their
residential house and lot in Los Banos
- Pets failed to pay the indebtedness and the interests and penalties
- Resps applied for extrajudicial foreclosure of the Reasl Estate Mortgage before the Office of the Clerk
of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff
- May 9 2001, the resps’ son and his wife were the highest bidders
o They were issued a Certificate of Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds of Calamba
- 1 yr redemption period expired w/o the Pets redeeming the mortgage
- Thus, resps executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership on Nov 2003 and the registration of the
land in their names on Feb 2004
- Pets refused Resps’ formal demand to vacate and surrender possession of the land