Short answer. Yes. Family Code Article 162 states that the family home provisions also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable, meaning a home your family occupied before the Family Code took effect can still fall under these rules, to the extent each specific provision fits that older situation.
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 retroactive reach the article creates
Article 162 is short, but its function is specific: it extends the Family Home chapter's coverage to residences that already existed as family homes before those provisions took effect, rather than limiting the chapter to homes established afterward. Without this article, a family that had lived in the same house for years before the Family Code's effectivity could be left wondering whether the family home protections were written only with newly constituted homes in mind. The article answers that directly: existing family residences are also governed by the chapter.
The qualifier that limits how far this goes
The retroactive extension is not unconditional. The article applies the chapter's provisions to existing residences insofar as said provisions are applicable. That phrase signals that not every rule in the chapter will fit an existing residence in exactly the same way it fits a home newly constituted under the Code; some provisions may be applicable as written, while others may not translate cleanly to a residence and family arrangement that predates the Code. The article does not itself say which provisions fall into which category.
Why this matters if creditors are involved
For a family whose home predates the Family Code, Article 162 is the reason the family home's protections are not automatically off the table simply because the house was acquired or occupied years before the relevant chapter existed. Whether a specific protection, such as exemption from execution, actually applies to that older residence depends on whether that particular provision is one the 'insofar as applicable' language reaches, which requires looking at the specific rule being invoked rather than the chapter as a whole.
What this article does not itself establish
Article 162 does not restate the substantive requirements for a family home, such as who must be residing there or any value limitation, and it does not resolve, on its own, which individual provisions apply cleanly to an existing residence and which do not. Those questions are answered by the specific provisions being applied, not by this transitional article, which only opens the door to the chapter applying at all.
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 →