Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. AUTHER G. KELLEY v. PLANTERS PRODUCTS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 185064 2012-01-16	SPS. ARACELI OLIVA-DE MESA AND ERNESTO S. DE MESA v. SPS. CLAUDIO D. ACERO REYES, J.
In the earlier case of Kelley, Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc.,[22] we stressed that: Under the Family Code, there is no need to constitute the family home judicially or extrajudicially. All family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988) are constituted as such by operation of law. All existing family residences as of August 3, 1988 are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.[23] (emphasis supplied and citation omitted)
	GR No. 185920 2010-07-20	JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS v. DANILO PANGILINAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Kelley, Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc.[10] lays down the rules relative to the levy on execution over the family home, viz: No doubt, a family home is generally exempt from execution provided it was duly constituted as such. There must be proof that the alleged family home was constituted jointly by the husband and wife or by an unmarried head of a family. It must be the house where they and their family actually reside and the lot on which it is situated. The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter's consent, or on the property of the unmarried head of the family. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at the time of its constitution, the amount of P300,000 in urban areas and P200,000 in rural areas.
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
There can be no question that a family home is generally exempt from execution,[26] provided it was duly constituted as such. It is likewise a given that the family home must be constituted on property owned by the persons constituting it. Indeed as pointed out in Kelley, Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc.[27] "[T]he family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter's consent, or on the property of the unmarried head of the family."[28] In other words:The family home must be established on the properties of (a) the absolute community, or (b) the conjugal partnership, or (c) the exclusive property of either spouse with the consent of the other. It cannot be established on property held in co-ownership with third persons. However, it can be established partly on community property, or conjugal property and partly on the exclusive property of either spouse with the consent of the latter.