G.R. No. 185064; January 16, 2012
SPOUSES ARACELI OLIVA-DE MESA and ERNESTO S. DE MESA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES CLAUDIO D. ACERO, JR. and MA. RUFINA D. ACERO, SHERIFF FELIXBERTO L. SAMONTE and REGISTRAR ALFREDO SANTOS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Araceli Oliva-De Mesa and Ernesto De Mesa purchased a parcel of land in Bulacan on April 17, 1984, while cohabiting, and built a house on it. They occupied it as their family home after marrying in January 1987. In September 1988, Araceli obtained a ₱100,000 loan from respondent Claudio D. Acero, Jr., secured by a mortgage on the property. The check issued as payment was dishonored. Claudio filed a B.P. 22 case. The RTC acquitted the petitioners but ordered them to pay Claudio ₱100,000 with interest. A writ of execution was issued on March 15, 1993, and Sheriff Felixberto L. Samonte levied on the property. It was sold at public auction on March 9, 1994, with Claudio as the highest bidder. A Final Deed of Sale was issued on March 24, 1995, and TCT No. T-221755 (M) was issued in Claudio’s name on April 4, 1995. Claudio later leased the property back to the petitioners, who defaulted on rent. Claudio and his wife filed an ejectment case, which the MTC decided in their favor, a decision that became final and executory. Subsequently, on October 29, 1999, the petitioners filed a complaint to nullify Claudio’s TCT, claiming the property was a family home exempt from execution under the Family Code. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling the exemption did not apply as the property was mortgaged to secure the loan for which it was levied. The CA affirmed, noting the exemption is not automatic and must be raised and proved to the sheriff prior to execution, which the petitioners failed to do. Petitioners filed this petition, insisting the execution sale was void as the property was a family home. Respondents alleged forum-shopping, arguing the issue was settled in the final ejectment judgment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.
2. Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to cancel Claudio’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-221755 (M)) over the subject property.

RULING

1. No, the petitioners are not guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, reliefs prayed for, and facts such that a judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in the other. The ejectment case and the action to cancel title do not share identity of issues and reliefs. The ejectment case primarily determined the better right of possession, with any ruling on ownership being merely provisional for that purpose. An action to cancel a Torrens title directly adjudicates ownership. Therefore, a judgment in an ejectment case is not a bar to an action concerning title to the property.
2. No, the lower courts did not err in refusing to cancel the title. The Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The exemption of a family home from execution under Article 153 of the Family Code is not self-executing or automatic. The party claiming the exemption must affirmatively raise the claim and prove the existence of the family home at the time of the levy or execution sale. The petitioners failed to do so. They did not raise the claim of exemption before the sheriff during the levy and execution process. Their claim, raised only years later in a separate action to nullify the title, was belated. Consequently, the execution sale and the subsequent issuance of TCT No. T-221755 (M) in Claudio’s favor were valid. The petition was denied.