Short answer. Yes. The chapter also governs existing family residences, insofar as its provisions are applicable. A house occupied as the family residence before the Family Code took effect is not left outside the protection merely because it was never formally constituted under the older law.
What the law says
The provisions in this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable.
Family Code, Article 162 — Application to Existing Family Residences. Read the full provision →
The transitional problem this solves
Before the Family Code, obtaining the protection took a deliberate act — a judicial or extrajudicial constitution — and a great many families who had lived in the same house for decades had simply never done it. When the new chapter changed the mechanism, those households would have been stranded had the chapter applied only to homes established under it. This article prevents that. It sweeps existing family residences into the new rules rather than requiring each family to start again from a formality nobody thought to observe.
Constitution now happens by occupancy
The change the article carries across is worth stating plainly, because it is the reason the provision matters. Under this chapter the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. Nothing is filed and nothing is registered. So a family that has occupied its house since long before the Family Code is within the protection by virtue of that occupation, and the absence of any old constitution document is not the gap it appears to be.
The qualifier does real work
Insofar as said provisions are applicable is not throat-clearing. It means each provision of the chapter is applied to an existing residence only where it can sensibly be applied, and the requirements of the chapter still have to be met on their own terms. The dwelling must be a family residence in fact; it must be property the family may constitute as a family home; the limit of one family home per person applies; and the protection is qualified by the exceptions and the value limits the chapter itself sets. The article extends coverage; it does not create an unconditional protection for old houses.
What to have ready if a creditor moves
Since the claim rests on occupancy rather than on a certificate, the proof is the proof of living there. Assemble what shows continuous residence over the years — the tax declarations, utility accounts, voter and school records, and anything establishing who the beneficiaries are and that they actually reside in the house. Alongside it, keep the title or the documents by which the family acquired the property. The protection also depends on a beneficiary continuing to reside there, so a house long since vacated is a different question, and one to raise with a lawyer early.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Sps. Auther Kelly, Jr. & Doris Kelley vs. Planters Products Inc. & Jorge Ragutana, G.R. No. 172263, July 9, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mary Josephine Gomez et al., vs. Roel Sta. Ines, et al, G.R. No. 132537, October 14, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Florante F. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 97898, August 11, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 162 — Application to Existing Family Residences
- Family Code, Article 153 — When the Family Home Is Constituted; the Exemption