G.R. No. 164740 ; July 31, 2006
SPOUSES EDUARDO and ELSA VERSOLA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SHERIFF REYNALDO B. MADOLARIA, JUDGE LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 217, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY AND DR. VICTORIA T. ONG, OH, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a loan obligation. Private respondent Dr. Victoria T. Ong Oh granted a loan to Dolores Ledesma. As security, Ledesma delivered the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. RT-51142 covering a Quezon City property. Ledesma later sold this property to petitioners Spouses Versola. To settle Ledesma’s debt to Ong and the balance of the purchase price, a tripartite agreement was forged involving Asiatrust Bank. Under this agreement, petitioners assumed Ledesma’s P1.5 million debt to Ong. Petitioners issued a check for this amount to Ong, but it was dishonored after Asiatrust refused to release their loan due to an encumbrance on the title. Ong filed a complaint for sum of money. The RTC and later the CA ruled against the petitioners, ordering them to pay Ong P1.5 million. This decision became final and executory.
A writ of execution was issued, and the petitioners’ property (the same subject property) was levied and sold at public auction to Ong as the highest bidder. The certificate of sale was registered. Nearly a year after the auction, and only upon the filing of Ong’s motion for issuance of a final deed of sale, did petitioners file an “Urgent Motion to Suspend Auction Sale,” claiming the property was a family home exempt from execution. The RTC denied this motion and ordered the issuance of the final deed. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim exemption of the levied property from execution on the ground that it is a family home.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the timeliness and substantiation of a claim for exemption. While a family home is indeed exempt from execution under the Family Code, such a claim is a personal privilege that must be asserted seasonably. Jurisprudence dictates that the claim should be set up and proven to the sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to do so estops the party from later claiming the exemption.
In this case, petitioners did not assert the exemption during the levy, prior to the auction sale, or even immediately after the sale. They remained silent for almost a full year until the winning bidder moved for a final deed. This belated claim, unsupported by evidence presented at the proper time, is deemed a mere afterthought designed to frustrate the execution of a final judgment. The Court emphasized that litigation must end, and the winning party must not be deprived of the verdict’s fruits through such a dilatory subterfuge. The claim, raised only as an eleventh-hour attempt to nullify the auction, was correctly rejected.