- Statute
- Philippine Family Code
- Article
- Art. 155
- Topic
- Statutory provision
- Status
- In force
- Year
- 1987
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except: (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. (243a)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
The family home is generally shielded from execution, forced sale, or attachment, but this protection does not apply in four situations: nonpayment of taxes; debts incurred before the home was constituted; debts secured by a mortgage on the premises; and debts owed to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen, and others who supplied work or materials to construct the building.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Gomez v. Roel, the Supreme Court held: Granted the petition and dismissed the complaint, holding that although the trial court had jurisdiction over the independent third-party action, the family-home exemption did not apply because the debts were incurred before the Family Code took effect in 1988, falling under Article 155's exception for debts predating the home's constitution.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Maximo v. Pelayo G.R. No. 257251
- Jose Modequillo v. Hon. Augusto V. Breva G.R. No. 86355
- Cesar D. Taruc v. Angelina D. Maximo G.R. No. 227728
- Rosita Tan G.R. No. 220695
- Eulogio v. Bell G.R. No. 186322
- Albino Josef v. Otelio Santos G.R. No. 165060
- Gomez v. Roel G.R. No. 132537
- Spouses Eduardo and Elsa Versola v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 164740