FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225837. June 23, 2021.]
SPOUSES PAQUITO Z. ABALLE [REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, AMADA G. ABALLE, MICHELLE ABALLE-REYSON, MEL CHITO G. ABALLE, MELCHI CLOYD G. ABALLE, MEL PAQUITO G. ABALLE] AND AMADA G. ABALLE, AND JOHN DOE, petitioners, vs.PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225837 (Spouses Paquito Z. Aballe [represented by his heirs, Amada G. Aballe, Michelle Aballe-Reyson, Mel Chito G. Aballe, Melchi Cloyd G. Aballe, Mel Paquito G. Aballe] and Amada G. Aballe, and John Doe, Petitioners, v. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., Respondent.) —
Antecedents
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues raised by the parties, the Court finds that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in issuing its assailed Decision 1 dated 03 December 2015 and Resolution 2 dated 31 May 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 05737-MIN, which affirmed the Orders dated 05 April 2013 3 and 14 June 2013 4 of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City in Civil Case No. 27, 327-99.
Petitioners, Spouses Paquito Z. Aballe [represented by his heirs, Amada G. Aballe, Michelle Aballe-Reyson, Mel Chito G. Aballe, Melchi Cloyd G. Aballe, Mel Paquito G. Aballe] and Amada G. Aballe, and John Doe (Amada; collectively, petitioners), contend that their right to due process was denied when the lower courts failed to address the issue of enforcing the decision in accordance with the Rule on prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased person. They point out that original defendant, Paquito, died before entry of final judgment. 5
Contrary to petitioners' claim, they were not denied due process. We note that when petitioners filed their opposition to the Motion for Execution, Paquito had already died and been substituted by his heirs.
At this point, it must be emphasized that it is premature for the trial court to rule on the manner of the enforcement of decision, considering that the pending incident therein is the propriety of the issuance of a Writ of Execution on a final and executory judgment. At any rate, Section 7 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provides the manner of execution in case of death of party, thus:
SECTION 7. Execution in Case of Death of Party. — In case of the death of a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee, upon the application of his executor or administrator, or successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, against his executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or personal property, or the enforcement of a lien thereon; x x x.
Considering that the subject matter of the case is a motor vehicle, a personal property, the execution may be enforced against the heirs of Paquito, as well as the latter's co-defendant, Amada.
Petitioners claim that the writ of execution issued would be enforced against their family, and that the CA erred in barring their claim for exemption of their family home from execution. Specifically, petitioners maintain that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it failed to observe the principle laid down in Albino Josef v. Otelo Santos6(Josef) on resolving a motion for execution. 7
To recall, the Court, in Josef, declared the trial's court order granting therein respondent Santos' Motion for Execution as null and void. The Court held that even during proceedings prior to the issuance of the writ of execution, petitioner brought to the fore the issue of exemption from execution of his home, which he claimed to be a family home in contemplation of the civil law. Thus, while a claim for exemption from execution of the family home should be set up and proved before the sale of the property at public auction, the trial court should still have made an earnest determination of the truth to petitioner's claim at that point.
However, petitioners insist that the circumstances of this case are different. We are not persuaded.
The circumstances in Josef do not apply squarely to this case. In Josef, the trial court proceeded to grant the motion for execution despite petitioner Josef's opposition wherein he alleged that he was insolvent, that he had no property to answer for the judgment credit, that the household furniture and appliances found therein belonged to his children, and are likewise exempt from execution. Eventually, the judgment award was satisfied with the levy and sale of the personal properties of petitioner's children as well as attachment and sale of the family home. The Court held that RTC gravely abused its discretion when granted the motion for execution without first ascertaining the veracity of petitioners' claim. 8
Ruling of the Court
In this case, We find that the RTC did not err in granting the motion for execution, which, at the point in the proceedings had become its ministerial duty. Unlike in the Josef case, herein petitioners failed to allege compelling reasons to warrant the denial of the Motion. Petitioners merely alleged that there was no entry of judgment yet, the original defendant Paquito died before the entry of judgment, and that the family home is exempt from execution. 9 We agree with the CA's findings that petitioners merely invoked that their family home must be exempted from execution without first establishing that subject property has, in fact, been constituted as a family home. 10
Based on the Barangay Certification 11 issued on 06 December 2012, petitioners have resided in their family home for more than 35 years, or sometime in the year 1977 or earlier. Since it was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code, or before 03 August 1988, then it should have been constituted as such, either judicially or extra-judicially, as provided under Articles 225, 229-231 and 233 of the Civil Code. 12
Pre-Family Code, judicial constitution of the family home requires the filing of a verified petition before the courts, and the registration of the court's order at the Registry of Deeds of the area where the property is located. Meanwhile, extrajudicial constitution is governed by Articles 240 to 242 of the Civil Code and involves the execution of a public instrument, which must also be registered with the Registry of Property. Failure to comply with either of these two modes of constitution will bar a judgment debtor from availing of the privilege. It was also held that whether the family home was constituted under the Civil Code or the Family Code, it is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for exemption must be set up and proved. 13
Petitioners, in the present case, have failed to establish that their property has been constituted as a family home under the provisions of the Civil Code, either judicially or extra judicially; thus, they cannot be allowed to claim exemption thereof. To emphasize, the claim that the property is exempt from execution for being the movant's family home is not a magic wand that will freeze the court's hand and forestall the execution of a final and executory ruling. It is not sufficient for the claimant to merely allege that such property is a family home. At any rate, whether the claim is premised under the Civil Code or the Family Code, the claim for exemption must be set up and proved. 14
At this point it must be stressed that We cannot adhere to the principle laid down in the Josef case, i.e., that of remanding the case to the RTC to determine the veracity of petitioners' claim for exemption from execution of their family home. As aptly pointed by the CA, the assailed orders of the RTC were anchored on facts and supported by law and jurisprudence. 15 Moreover, to remand the case to the RTC would all the more prolong the case, which had already been pending since 2004.
On a final note, every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory, and unappealable. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the life of the law. To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the interest of justice that this Court should write finis to this litigation. 16
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 03 December 2015 and Resolution dated 31 May 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05737-MIN are AFFIRMED.
The motion of Atty. Grace Luna A. Fuentes to withdraw as counsel for petitioners, with conformity, due to her old age and health reasons, is GRANTED; the petitioners are hereby directed to INFORM this court of the name and current address of their new counsel, and the latter to FILE AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, within ten (10) days from notice hereof; and the letter dated February 24, 2021 of Ms. Nelsie D. Loja, Chief, Archives Section, Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, Cagayan de Oro City, in compliance with the Resolution dated March 11, 2020, transmitting the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 05737-MIN with 204 pages, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo at 54-61; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ronaldo B. Martin of the 23rd Division, Court of Appeals.
2.Id. at 85-87.
3.Id. at 105.
4.Id. at 106.
5.Id. at 30, 32.
6. 592 Phil. 438 (2008), G.R. No. 165060, 27 November 2008 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].
7.Rollo, p. 36.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 121-122.
10.Id. at 59.
11.Id. at 123.
12.See Ramos v. Pangilinan, 639 Phil. 192 (2010), G.R. No. 185920, 20 July 2010 [Per J. Carpio-Morales].
13.Id.
14.See Salazar v. Felias, G.R. No. 213972, 05 February 2018 [Per J. Reyes, Jr.].
15.Rollo, p. 60.
16.Anama v. Court of Appeals, 680 Phil. 305 (2012), G.R. No. 187021, 25 January 2012 [Per J. Mendoza].