Scribd
Upload
161 views2 pages

Eulogio vs. Bell Sr.

The Supreme Court ruled that the family home of the respondents cannot be sold on execution under Article 160 of the Family Code, as the petitioners failed to prove the necessary conditions for such a sale. The Court of Appeals had previously found that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the execution sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for lack of merit.

Uploaded by

Rafc Dos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
161 views2 pages

Eulogio vs. Bell Sr.

The Supreme Court ruled that the family home of the respondents cannot be sold on execution under Article 160 of the Family Code, as the petitioners failed to prove the necessary conditions for such a sale. The Court of Appeals had previously found that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the execution sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for lack of merit.

Uploaded by

Rafc Dos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

186322, July 08, 2015 –


Enrico S. Eulogio and Natividad V. Eulogio vs. Paterno C. Bell, Sr.,
Rogelia Calingasan-Bell, Paterno William Bell, Jr., Florence Felicia
Victoria Bell, Paterno Ferdinand Bell III, and Paterno Beneraño Bell
IV
FACTS:
In 1995, the Bell siblings lodged a Complaint for annulment of
documents, quieting of title and damages against petitioners. The
Complaint sought the annulment of the contract of sale executed
by Spouses Bell over their 329 square meters residential house
and lot. The RTC granted respondents’ prayers and even said that
the said property is a family home but a Writ of Execution was
issued by the said trial court when petitioners raised that the
family home is beyond the amount prescribed in Article 157 thus
it can be the subject of an execution. The Court of Appeals found
that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the
execution sale of the subject family home.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents’ family home may be sold on
execution under Article 160 of the Family Code
RULING:
The Supreme Court explained in this case that respondents’
family home cannot be sold on execution under Article 160 of the
Family Code. To warrant the execution sale of respondents’ family
home under Article 160, petitioners needed to establish the
following facts:
1. there was an increase in its actual value;
2. the increase resulted from voluntary improvements on the
property introduced by the persons constituting the family
home, its owners or any of its beneficiaries; and
3. the increased actual value exceeded the maximum allowed
under Article 157.
During the execution proceedings, none of these facts was
alleged-much less proven by the petitioners. Thus, the Supreme
Court ruled that the petition is hereby denied for lack of merit.
The decision of the Court of Appeals enjoining the trial court from
proceeding with the sale of the respondents’ family home is
AFFIRMED.

You might also like