WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the

appealedDecisionAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
YnaresSantiago
(Chairperson),
AustriaMartinez,
ChicoNazario andNachura, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.Thesuabilityofagovernmentofficialdependson
whethertheofficialconcernedwasactingwithinhisofficial
orjurisdictionalcapacity,andwhethertheactsdoneinthe
performance of official functions will result in a charge or
financial liability against the government. (Department of
Health vs. Pharmawealth, Inc.,518SCRA240[2007])
o0o

G.R.No.165060.November27,2008.*

ALBINO JOSEF, petitioner, vs. OTELIO SANTOS,

respondent.
Judgments; Where a judgment or judicial order is void it may
be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw
and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its
head.The above Order did not resolve nor take into account
petitioners allegations in his Opposition, which are material and
relevant in the resolution of the motion for issuance of a writ of
execution. This is serious error on the part of the trial court. It
should have made an earnest determination of the truth to
petitioners claim that the house and lot in which he and his
childrenresidedwastheirdulyconstitutedfamilyhome.Sinceitdid
not, its July 16, 2003 Order is thus null and void. Where a
judgment or judicial order is void it may be said to be a lawless
thing,whichcanbetreatedas
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.

58

58

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos

anoutlawandslainatsight,orignoredwhereverandwheneverit
exhibitsitshead.
Family Law; Family Home; The family home is a real right

which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment,

constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is
situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy
such properties, which must remain with the person constituting it
and his heirs.Thefamilyhomeisarealrightwhichisgratuitous,
inalienableandfreefromattachment,constitutedoverthedwelling
place and the land on which it is situated, which confers upon a
particular family the right to enjoy such properties, which must
remain with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be
seizedbycreditorsexceptincertainspecialcases.
Same; Same; The protection of the family home is just as
necessary in the preservation of the family as a basic social
institution, and since no custom, practice or agreement destructive
of the family shall be recognized or given effect, the trial courts
failure to observe the proper procedures to determine the veracity of
petitioners allegations, is unjustified.The family home is the
dwellingplaceofapersonandhisfamily,asacredsymboloffamily
love and repository of cherished memories that last during ones
lifetime. It is the sanctuary of that union which the law declares
and protects as a sacred institution; and likewise a shelter for the
fruits of that union. It is where both can seek refuge and
strengthen the tie that binds them together and which ultimately
forms the moral fabric of our nation. The protection of the family
homeisjustasnecessaryinthepreservationofthefamilyasabasic
social institution, and since no custom, practice or agreement
destructiveofthefamilyshallberecognizedorgiveneffect,thetrial
courts failure to observe the proper procedures to determine the
veracity of petitioners allegations, is unjustified. The same is true
withrespecttopersonalpropertieslevieduponandsoldatauction.
DespitepetitionersallegationsinhisOpposition,thetrialcourtdid
not make an effort to determine the nature of the same, whether
the items were exempt from execution or not, or whether they
belongedtopetitionerortosomeoneelse.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionsofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
59

VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008

59

Josef vs. Santos

Manuel R. Bustamante forpetitioner.
Ciriaco A. Macapagal forrespondent.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari underRule45ofthe
RulesofCourtassailstheNovember17,20031Resolutionof
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.80315,dismissing
petitionersspecialcivilactionofcertiorariforfailuretofile
a prior motion for reconsideration, and the May 7, 20042
Resolutiondenyingthemotionforreconsideration.
PetitionerAlbinoJosefwasthedefendantinCivilCase
No. 95110MK, which is a case for collection of sum of
money filed by herein respondent Otelio Santos, who
claimed that petitioner failed to pay the shoe materials
whichheboughtoncreditfromrespondentonvariousdates

in1994.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City,
Branch 272, found petitioner liable to respondent in the
amount of P404,836.50 with interest at 12% per annum
reckonedfromJanuary9,1995untilfullpayment.3
Petitioner appealed4 to the Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the trial courts decision in toto.5 Petitioner filed
before this Court a petition for review on certiorari, but it
was dismissed in a Resolution dated February 18, 2002.6
TheJudgmentbecamefinalandexecutoryonMay21,2002.
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 64; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesRubenT.ReyesandNoelG.Tijam.
2Id.,atpp.7273.
3Id.,atpp.2933;pennedbyJudgeReubenR.DelaCruz.
4DocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.56952.
5Rollo,pp.3438;pennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoV.Cosicoand
concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Alicia L.
Santos.
6Id.,atpp.13,51;docketedasG.R.No.150720.
60

60

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos

OnFebruary17,2003,respondentmovedforissuanceof
awritofexecution,7whichwasopposedbypetitioner.8Inan
Order dated July 16, 2003,9 the trial court granted the
motion,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads,asfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for issuance of
writofexecutionisherebygranted.Letawritofexecutionbeissued
commandingtheSheriffofthisCourttoexecutethedecisiondated
December18,1996.
SOORDERED.10

AwritofexecutionwasissuedonAugust20,200311and
enforced on August 21, 2003. On August 29, 2003, certain
personal properties subject of the writ of execution were
auctioned off. Thereafter, a real property located at
Marikina City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT)No.N105280wassoldonOctober28,2003bywayof
public auction to fully satisfy the judgment credit.
Respondent emerged as the winning bidder and a
CertificateofSale12datedNovember6,2003wasissuedin
hisfavor.
OnNovember5,2003,petitionerfiledanoriginalpetition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the
sheriffslevyandsaleoftheabovementionedpersonaland
real properties. Petitioner claimed that the personal
propertiesdidnotbelongtohimbuttohischildren;andthat
the real property covered by TCT No. N105280 was his
familyhomethusexemptfromexecution.
OnNovember17,2003,theCourtofAppealsissuedthe
assailed Resolution dismissing the petition for failure of
petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial

courts
_______________
7Id.,atpp.5052.
8Id.,atpp.5355.
9Id.,atp.56.
10Id.
11Id.,atpp.5758.
12Id.,atpp.6162.
61

VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008

61

Josef vs. Santos

July16,2003Ordergrantingthemotionforexecutionand
ordering the issuance of a writ therefor, as well as for his
failuretoindicateinhispetitionthetimelinessofitsfiling
asrequiredundertheRulesofCourt.OnMay7,2004,the
appellate court denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration.
Thus, the instant petition which raises the following
issues:
I.
WHETHERORNOTTHELEVYANDSALEOFTHEPERSONAL
BELONGINGSOFTHEPETITIONERSCHILDRENASWELLAS
THE ATTACHMENT AND SALE ON PUBLIC AUCTION OF HIS
FAMILY HOME TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT AWARD IN
FAVOROFRESPONDENTISLEGAL.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONERS
PETITIONFORCERTIORARIBYTHEHONORABLECOURTOF
APPEALSISJUSTIFIEDUNDERTHECIRCUMSTANCES.

Petitionerarguesthatthetrialcourtsherifferroneously
attached, levied and sold on execution the real property
covered by TCT No. N105280 because the same is his
familyhome;thattheexecutionsalewasirregularbecause
it was conducted without complying with the notice and
posting of requirements; and that the personal and real
properties were sold for inadequate prices as to shock the
conscience. The real property was allegedly worth P8
millionbutwassoldforonlyP848,448.64.
Petitioner also argues that the appellate court gravely
abuseditsdiscretionindismissingthepetitionbasedpurely
on technical grounds, i.e., his failure to file a motion for
reconsiderationofthetrialcourtsordergrantingexecution,
and his failure to indicate in his petition for certiorari the
timelinessoffilingthesamewiththeCourtofAppeals.
Respondent, on the other hand, argues that petitioners
alleged family home has not been shown to have been
judiciallyorextrajudiciallyconstituted,obviouslyreferring
totheprovi
62

62

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos

sions on family home of the Civil Codenot those of the

FamilyCodewhichshouldapplyinthiscase;thatpetitioner
has not shown to the courts satisfaction that the personal
propertiesexecuteduponandsoldbelongedtohischildren.
Respondent argues that he is entitled to satisfaction of
judgment considering the length of time it took for the
parties to litigate and the various remedies petitioner
availedofwhichhavedelayedthecase.
Thepetitionismeritorious.
Petitioner, in his opposition to respondents motion for
issuance of a writ of execution, claimed that he was
insolvent; that he had no property to answer for the
judgment credit; that the house and lot in which he was
residingatthetimewashisfamilyhomethusexemptfrom
execution; that the household furniture and appliances
foundthereinarelikewiseexemptfromexecution;andthat
these furniture and appliances belonged to his children
JasminJosefandJeanJosefIsidro.Thus,asearlyasduring
proceedings prior to the issuance of the writ of execution,
petitioner brought to the fore the issue of exemption from
executionofhishome,whichheclaimedtobeafamilyhome
incontemplationofthecivillaw.
However, instead of inquiring into the nature of
petitioners allegations in his opposition, the trial court
ignored the same and granted respondents motion for
execution.ThefulltextoftheJuly16,2003Orderprovides,
asfollows:
ThisresolvestheMotionfortheIssuanceofWritofExecution
filed by plaintiff thru counsel and the Opposition thereto filed by
thedefendantonherownbehalf.
The records show that a decision was rendered by this Court in
favor of the plaintiff on December 18, 1995 which decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals on June 26, 2001 and by the
SupremeCourtonFebruary18,2002.OnJune18,2003,thisCourt
receivedtheentirerecordsofthecasefromtheCourtofAppeals.
63

VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008

63

Josef vs. Santos

Considering the foregoing, it is now the ministerial duty of the
CourttoissueawritofexecutionpursuanttoSec.1,Rule39ofthe
RulesofCourt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for issuance of
writofexecutionisherebygranted.Letawritofexecutionbeissued
commandingtheSheriffofthisCourttoexecutethedecisiondated
December18,1996.
SOORDERED.13

The above Order did not resolve nor take into account
petitionersallegationsinhisOpposition,whicharematerial
andrelevantintheresolutionofthemotionforissuanceofa
writofexecution.Thisisseriouserroronthepartofthetrial
court.Itshouldhavemadeanearnestdeterminationofthe

truthtopetitionersclaimthatthehouseandlotinwhichhe
and his children resided was their duly constituted family
home.Sinceitdidnot,itsJuly16,2003Orderisthusnull
andvoid.Whereajudgmentorjudicialorderisvoiditmay
be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an
outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
wheneveritexhibitsitshead.14
The family home is a real right which is gratuitous,
inalienableandfreefromattachment,constitutedoverthe
dwelling place and the land on which it is situated, which
confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy such
properties,whichmustremainwiththepersonconstituting
it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in
certainspecialcases.15
Upon being apprised that the property subject of
executionallegedlyconstitutespetitionersfamilyhome,the
trialcourtshouldhaveobservedthefollowingprocedure:
_______________
13Id.,atp.56.
14Abbain v. Chua,No.L24241,February26,1968,22SCRA748.
15 Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, March 9, 1999,
304SCRA308.
64

64

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos

1.Determineifpetitionersobligationtorespondentfallsunder
eitheroftheexceptionsunderArticle15516 oftheFamilyCode;
2.Makeaninquiryintotheveracityofpetitionersclaimthatthe
propertywashisfamilyhome;17 conductanocularinspectionofthe
premises; an examination of the title; an interview of members of
thecommunitywheretheallegedfamilyhomeislocated,inorderto
determine if petitioner actually resided within the premises of the
claimed family home; order a submission of photographs of the
premises,depositions,and/oraffidavitsofproperindividuals/parties;
or a solemn examination of the petitioner, his children and other
wit
_______________
16FamilyCode.
Art.155.The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced
saleorattachmentexcept:
(1)Fornonpaymentoftaxes;
(2)Fordebtsincurredpriortotheconstitutionofthefamilyhome;
(3)Fordebtssecuredbymortgagesonthepremisesbeforeorafter
suchconstitution;and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders,
materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished
materialfortheconstructionofthebuilding.
17FamilyCode.
Art.152.Thefamilyhome,constitutedjointlybythehusbandand
the wife or by an unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling house
wheretheyandtheirfamilyreside,andthelandonwhichitissituated.

Art.153.Thefamilyhomeisdeemedconstitutedonahouseandlot
fromthetimeitisoccupiedasafamilyresidence.Fromthetimeofits
constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from
execution,forcedsaleorattachmentexceptashereinafterprovidedand
totheextentofthevalueallowedbylaw.
Art.162.TheprovisionsinthisChaptershallalsogovernexisting
familyresidencesinsofarassaidprovisionsareapplicable.
65

VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008

65

Josef vs. Santos

nesses.Atthesametime,therespondentisgiventheopportunityto
crossexamineandpresentevidencetothecontrary;
3.Ifthepropertyisaccordinglyfoundtoconstitutepetitioners
familyhome,thecourtshoulddetermine:
a)iftheobligationsueduponwascontractedorincurred
priorto,orafter,theeffectivityoftheFamilyCode;18
b)ifpetitionersspouseisstillalive,aswellasifthereare
otherbeneficiariesofthefamilyhome;19
c)if the petitioner has more than one residence for the
purpose of determining which of them, if any, is his family
home;20 and
d)itsactuallocationandvalue,forthepurpose
ofapplyingtheprovisionsofArticles15721 and
_______________
18 Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990, 185 SCRA 766;
Manacop v. Court of Appeals,342Phil.735;277SCRA57(1997);Taneo v. Court
of Appeals,supranote15.
19FamilyCode.
Art.154.Thebeneficiariesofafamilyhomeare:
(1)Thehusbandandwife,oranunmarriedpersonwhoistheheadof
afamily;and
(2)Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters,
whethertherelationshipbelegitimateorillegitimate,whoarelivingin
thefamilyhomeandwhodependupontheheadofthefamilyforlegal
support.
Art.159.Thefamilyhomeshallcontinuedespitethedeathofone
orbothspousesoroftheunmarriedheadofthefamilyforaperiodoften
yearsorforaslongasthereisaminorbeneficiary,andtheheirscannot
partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor.
This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or
constitutedthefamilyhome.
20FamilyCode.
Art.161.Forpurposesofavailingofthebenefitsofafamilyhome
as provided for in this Chapter, a person may constitute, or be the
beneficiaryof,onlyonefamilyhome.
21FamilyCode.
66

66

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos
16022 oftheFamilyCode.

Thefamilyhomeisthedwellingplaceofapersonandhis
family,asacredsymboloffamilyloveandrepositoryofcher
_______________
Art.157. The actual value of the family home shall not
exceed, at the time of its constitution, the amount of Three
hundred thousand pesos in urban areas, and Two hundred
thousandpesosinruralareas,orsuchamountsasmayhereafter
befixedbylaw.
In any event, if the value of the currency changes after the
adoption of this Code, the value most favorable for the
constitutionofafamilyhomeshallbethebasisofevaluation.
For purposes of this Article, urban areas are deemed to
include chartered cities and municipalities whose annual income
at least equals that legally required for chartered cities. All
othersaredeemedtoberuralareas.
22FamilyCode.
Art.160. When a creditor whose claim is not among those
mentionedinArticle155obtainsajudgmentinhisfavor,andhe
has reasonable grounds to believe that the family home is
actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article
157,hemayapplytothecourtwhichrenderedthejudgmentfor
an order directing the sale of the property under execution. The
court shall so order if it finds that the actual value of the family
home exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law as of the
timeofitsconstitution.Iftheincreasedactualvalueexceedsthe
maximum allowed in Article 157 and results from subsequent
voluntary improvements introduced by the person or persons
constituting the family home, by the owner or owners of the
property, or by any of the beneficiaries, the same rule and
procedureshallapply.
At the execution sale, no bid below the value allowed for a
family home shall be considered. The proceeds shall be applied
first to the amount mentioned in Article 157, and then to the
liabilities under the judgment and the costs. The excess, if any,
shallbedeliveredtothejudgmentdebtor.
67

VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008

67

Josef vs. Santos

ished memories that last during ones lifetime.23 It is the
sanctuaryofthatunionwhichthelawdeclaresandprotects
asasacredinstitution;andlikewiseashelterforthefruitsof
thatunion.Itiswherebothcanseekrefugeandstrengthen
thetiethatbindsthemtogetherandwhichultimatelyforms
themoralfabricofournation.Theprotectionofthefamily
homeisjustasnecessaryinthepreservationofthefamily
asabasicsocialinstitution,andsincenocustom,practiceor
agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or
giveneffect,24thetrialcourtsfailuretoobservetheproper
procedures to determine the veracity of petitioners
allegations,isunjustified.
The same is true with respect to personal properties
levied upon and sold at auction. Despite petitioners
allegationsinhisOpposition,thetrialcourtdidnotmakean

effort to determine the nature of the same, whether the

itemswereexemptfromexecution or not, or whether they
belongedtopetitionerortosomeoneelse.25
_______________
23A.Tolentino,Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code
of the Philippines, Vol. I (1990 ed.), p. 508, citing Code Commission of
1947,pp.1819,20.
24FamilyCode,Art.149.
25Sec.13,Rule39oftheRulesofCourtprovide:
Sec.13.Property exempt from execution.Except as otherwise
expresslyprovidedbylaw,thefollowingproperty,andnoother,shallbe
exemptfromexecution:
(a)The judgment obligors family home as provided by law,
orthehomesteadinwhichheresides,andlandnecessarilyused
inconnectiontherewith;
(b)Ordinarytoolsandimplementspersonallyusedbyhimin
histrade,employment,orlivelihood;
(c)Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other
beasts of burden such as the judgment obligor may select
necessarilyusedbyhiminhisordinaryoccupation;
(d)His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal
use,excludingjewelry;
68

68

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos

Respondentmovedforissuanceofawritofexecutionon
February 17, 2003 while petitioner filed his opposition on
June23,2003.ThetrialcourtgrantedthemotiononJuly
16,2003,andthewritofexecutionwasissuedonAugust20,
2003. Clearly, the trial court had enough time to conduct
the crucial inquiry that would have spared petitioner the
trouble of having to seek relief all the way to this Court.
Indeed,thetrialcourtsinactiononpetitionersplearesulted
in serious injustice to the latter, not to mention that its
failure to conduct an inquiry based on the latters claim
borderedongrossignoranceofthelaw.
_______________
(e)Household

furniture

and

utensils

necessary

for

housekeeping,andusedforthatpurposebythejudgmentobligor
and his family, such as the judgment obligor may select, of a
valuenotexceedingonehundredthousandpesos;
(f)Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four
months;
(g)The professional libraries and equipment of judges,
lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors,
clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding
threehundredthousandpesosinvalue;
(h)One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total
value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman and
bythelawfuluseofwhichheearnshislivelihood;
(i)So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the

judgmentobligorofhispersonalserviceswithinthefourmonths
precedingthelevyasarenecessaryforthesupportofhisfamily;
(j)Letteredgravestones;
(k)Monies benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in
anymannergrowingoutofanylifeinsurance;
(l)The right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government;
(m)Propertiesspeciallyexemptbylaw.
But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall
be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its
priceoruponajudgmentofforeclosureofamortgagethereon.
69

VOL.572,NOVEMBER27,2008

69

Josef vs. Santos

Being void, the July 16, 2003 Order could not have
conferred any right to respondent. Any writ of execution
based on it is likewise void. Although we have held in
severalcases26 thataclaimforexemptionfromexecutionof
thefamilyhomeshouldbesetupandprovedbeforethesale
ofthepropertyatpublicauction,andfailuretodosowould
estopthepartyfromlaterclaimingtheexemptionsincethe
right of exemption is a personal privilege granted to the
judgment debtor which must be claimed by the judgment
debtorhimselfatthetimeofthelevyorwithinareasonable
periodthereafter,thecircumstancesoftheinstantcaseare
different. Petitioner claimed exemption from execution of
his family home soon after respondent filed the motion for
issuanceofawritofexecution,thusgivingnoticetothetrial
courtandrespondentthatapropertyexemptfromexecution
may be in danger of being subjected to levy and sale.
Thereupon,thetrialcourtiscalledtoobservetheprocedure
ashereinlaidout;ontheotherhand,therespondentshould
observe the procedure prescribed in Article 160 of the
Family Code, that is, to obtain an order for the sale on
execution of the petitioners family home, if so, and apply
the proceedsless the maximum amount allowed by law
underArticle157oftheCodewhichshouldremainwiththe
petitioner for the rebuilding of his family hometo his
judgment credit. Instead, both the trial court and
respondent completely ignored petitioners argument that
thepropertiessubjectofthewritareexemptfromexecution.
Indeed, petitioners resort to the special civil action of
certiorariintheCourtofAppealswasbelatedandwithout
benefitoftherequisitemotionforreconsideration,however,
considering the gravity of the issue, involving as it does
matters that strike at the very heart of that basic social
institution which the State has a constitutional and moral
duty to preserve and protect, as well as petitioners
constitutionalright
_______________
26 Honrado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166333, November 25,
2005, 476 SCRA 280; Gomez v. Gealone, G.R. No. 58281, November 13,

1991,203SCRA474.
70

70

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Josef vs. Santos

toabode,allproceduralinfirmitiesoccasioneduponthiscase
must take a back seat to the substantive questions which
deservetobeansweredinfull.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
GRANTED. The November 17, 2003 and May 7, 2004
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
80315areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheJuly16,2003
OrderoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMarikinaCity,Branch
272inCivilCaseNo.95110MK,aswellasthewritorwrits
of execution thus issued in said case, are hereby
DECLARED VOID, and all acts proceeding therefrom and
any title obtained by virtue thereof are likewise
DECLAREDVOID.
The trial court is hereby DIRECTED (1) to conduct a
solemninquiryintothenatureoftherealpropertycovered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N105280, with a view
toward determining whether the same is petitioner Albino
Josefsfamilyhome,andifso,applythepertinentprovisions
oftheFamilyCodeandRule39oftheRulesofCourt;and
(2) to conduct an inquiry into the ownership of all other
properties that were levied upon and sold, with the aim of
determining as well whether these properties are exempt
fromexecutionunderexistinglaw.
RespondentOtelioSantosisherebyDIRECTEDtohold
the abovementioned real and personal properties, or the
proceeds thereof, in trust to await the outcome of the trial
courtsinquiry.
Finally, the trial court is DIRECTED to resolve, with
utmostdispatch,CivilCaseNo.95110MKwithinsixty(60)
daysfromreceiptofacopyofthisDecision.
SOORDERED.
AustriaMartinez, Tinga,** ChicoNazario andNachura,
JJ., concur.
_______________
** In lieu of Associate Justice Teresita J. LeonardoDe Castro, per
SpecialOrderNo.539datedNovember14,2008.

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.