GR 104875; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104875 November 13, 1992
FLORANTE F. MANACOP, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. filed a complaint for a sum of money, with a prayer for preliminary attachment, against petitioner Florante F. Manacop’s corporation due to failure to pay a sub-contract cost. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on August 11, 1989, leading to the attachment of a parcel of land in Quezon City owned by petitioner. The original complaint was later amended to substitute petitioner as the defendant, alleging he was doing business under the name and style of F.F. Manacop Construction Co., Inc. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion on September 5, 1990, arguing: (1) the writ was irregularly issued due to the absence of a separate affidavit; (2) the writ was improperly implemented before he was made a party-defendant; and (3) the attached property was his family home and thus exempt from attachment. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting the filing of this petition.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the challenge posed by petitioner against the denial of his omnibus motion regarding the writ of preliminary attachment?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
1. On the lack of a separate affidavit: The verified statement incorporated in the complaint is sufficient to obtain a writ of attachment, as held in Nasser vs. Court of Appeals.
2. On the issuance of the writ before petitioner was a defendant: A writ of preliminary attachment may be validly applied for and granted even before the defendant is summoned, as explained in Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals. Jurisdiction over the defendant’s person is not a prerequisite for the issuance of the writ.
3. On the exemption of the family home: The property is not exempt. Petitioner’s debt was incurred in 1987, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. Following Mondequillo vs. Breva, the provisions on family home in the Family Code do not have retroactive effect. Existing family residences are considered family homes only prospectively from the Code’s effectivity and are not exempt from obligations incurred before that date.
4. The Court also noted that petitioner’s argument regarding the distinction of his corporate personality was not raised in his omnibus motion and was thus deemed waived under the omnibus motion rule (Section 8, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court).