Anda di halaman 1dari 5

inspired by the game the CLASH OF CLAN :) anyway, my digest is your digest.

:) enjoy reading :) comments are


really appreciated :)
Saturday, February 1, 2014
JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS vs. DANILO PANGILINAN
G.R. No. 185920 July 20, 2010
Facts:
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against E.M.
Ramos Electric, Inc., a company owned by Ernesto M. Ramos, the patriarch
of herein petitioners. The labor arbiter ordered Ramos and the company to
pay the respondents back-wages, separation pay, 13th month pay & service
incentive leave pay. The decision became final and executory so a writ of
execution was issued which the Deputy Sheriff of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) implemented by levying a property in Ramos
name situated in Pandacan.

Alleging that the Pandacan property was the family home, hence,
exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment award, Ramos and the
company moved to quash the writ of execution. Respondents argued that it
is not the family home there being another one in Antipolo and that the
Pandacan address is actually the business address. The motion was denied
and the appeal was likewise denied by the NLRC.
Issue:
Whether or not the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid.
Ruling:
Yes. For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction
must be made as to what law applies based on when it was constituted and
what requirements must be complied with by the judgment debtor or his
successors claiming such privilege. Hence, two sets of rules are applicable. If
the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or
before August 3, 1988, then it must have been constituted either judicially
or extra-judicially as provided under Articles 225, 229-231 and 233 of the
Civil Code. Meanwhile, Articles 240 to 242 governs extrajudicial
constitution.
On the other hand, for family homes constructed after the effectivity
of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, there is no need to constitute extra
judicially or judicially, and the exemption is effective from the time it was
constituted and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries under Art. 154
actually reside therein. Moreover, the family home should belong to the
absolute community or conjugal partnership, or if exclusively by one spouse,
its constitution must have been with consent of the other, and its value
must not exceed certain amounts depending upon the area where it is
located. Further, the debts incurred for which the exemption does not apply
as provided under Art. 155 for which the family home is made answerable
must have been incurred after August 3, 1988. In both instances, the claim
Search
Search This Blog
Share this on
Facebook
Tweet this
View stats
(NEW) Appointment
gadget >>
Share It
Clash of Minds
View my complete
profile
About Me
! 2014 (63)
" September (5)
! February (47)
CEBU
CONTRACT
ORS
CONSORTIU
M CO. vs.
COURT OF
APPEA...
ARTURO
BORJAL
a.k.a. ART
BORJAL and
MAXIMO
SOLIVEN...
JOSEB.L.
REYES, in
behalf of the
ANTI-BASES
COALIT...
SOCIALWEATH
ER
STATIONS,
INCORPORA
TED and
KAMAHALAN
...
LEOPITA vs.
THE COURT
OF
APPEALS,
RAMON
BAGATSING,
...
Blog Archive
1
Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Posted by Clash of Minds at 5:27 PM
Labels: 2010, case digest, civil law, G.R. No. 185920 July 20, JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS vs.
DANILO PANGILINAN
for exemption must be proved.
In the present case, since petitioners claim that the family home was
constituted prior to August 3, 1988, or as early as 1944, they must comply
with the procedure mandated by the Civil Code. There being absolutely no
proof that the Pandacan property was judicially or extra judicially
constituted as the Ramos family home, the law protecting the family home
cannot apply thereby making the levy upon the Pandacan property valid.
+1 Recommend this on Google
Enter your comment...
Comment as: Google Account
Publish Publish

Preview Preview
No comments:
Post a Comment
Share
View stats
Facebook Share
HEIRS OF THE
LATE
SPOUSES
AURELIO
AND
ESPERANZA
BAL...
RURAL BANK
OF STA.
MARIA,
PANGASINA
N vs.
THEHONOR
A...
CORAZON G.
RUIZ vs.
COURT OF
APPEALS
and
CONSUELOT
...
MARIANO T.
LIM, JAIME T.
LIM, JOSE T.
LIM,
JOVITAT...
UNIVERSAL
ROBINA
SUGAR
MILLING
CORPORATI
ON
vs.HEIR...
RITA SARMING,
et. al vs.
CRESENCIO
DY, et alG.R.
N...
EPIFANIA DELA
CRUZ,
substituted by
LAUREANA
V. ALB...
CONRADOCAR
MELO vs.
THE
PEOPLE OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
a...
PEOPLEOF
THE
PHILIPPINES
vs. LUIS
TAMPAL,
DOMINGO ...
GENEROSOES
MEA and
ALBERTO
ALBA vs.
JUDGE
JULIAN B...
GENEROSOES
MEA and
ALBERTO
ALBA vs.
JUDGE
JULIAN B...
RICARDOL.
MANOTOC,
JR. vs. THE
COURT OF
APPEALS,
H...
RICARDOC.
SILVERIO vs.
THE COURT
OF
APPEALS,
HON. ...
NARCISOALVA
REZ vs. THE
COURT OF
FIRST
INSTANCE
OF ...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
PABLITO
TANEO,JR.,
JOSE
TANEO,
NENA T.
CATUBIG
and...
FLORANTE
F.MANACOP
vs. COURT
OF APPEALS
and E & L ...
MARY
JOSEPHINE
GOMEZ and
EUGENIA
SOCORRO
C. GOMEZ-
S...
SPOUSES
AUTHER
G.KELLEY,
JR. and
DORIS A.
KELLEY v...
josef vs santos
JOSE
MODEQUILL
Ovs. HON.
AUGUSTO V.
BREVA
FRANCISCO.
..
JUANITA
TRINIDADRA
MOS vs.
DANILO
PANGILINAN
G...
CECILIO
MENDOZAvs
. THE
HONORABL
E COURT OF
APPEALS,...
G.R. No.
123298 Nove
mber 27,
2003PEOPLE
OF THEPHI...
G.R.
No.162052
January
13,
2005ALVIN
JO...
NICANOR T.
SANTOSvs.
COURT OF
APPEALS,
CONSUELA
O T...
G.R. No.
144463
January 14,
2004SENATO
R...
Evangeline
Ladongavs.
People of the
PhilippinesG
R ...
Adonis
Aradillosand
Albino
Galabo vs.
Court of
App...
G.R. No.
181701
January
18,
2012PEOPL..
.
G.R. No.
191721
January
12,
2011PEOPL..
.
G.R. No.
189328
February
21,2011PEO
PLE OF
THEPH...
People of
thePhilippines
vs. Reynaldo
Villanueva y...
INTHE MATTER
OF THE
PETITION
FOR
HABEAS
CORPUS
OF:...
ESTEBANMOR
ANO, CHAN
SAU WAH
and FU YAN
FUN vs.
HON...
HARRY S.
STONEHILL,
ROBERT P.
BROOKS,
JOHN J.
BROO...
" January (11)
Total Pageviews
6 1 3 6 1 3
Simple template. Powered by Blogger.