Text of the provision
Art. 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except:
(1) For nonpayment of taxes;
(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building.
(243a)
Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, approved July 6, 1987. The Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005). Reproduced in full.
What this article means
The exemption in Article 153 is powerful but not absolute. Against four kinds of debt the family home can still be taken:
- Unpaid taxes on the property;
- debts that already existed before the home was constituted;
- debts secured by a mortgage on the premises (whether the mortgage came before or after constitution); and
- debts owed to the workers and suppliers who built the house — laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen.
The thread is fairness: the home cannot be used to escape taxes, pre-existing creditors, a mortgage the owner voluntarily gave, or the very people whose labor and materials made the house exist.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 153 — the exemption these are exceptions to.
- Article 160 — execution by a creditor when the home exceeds its value limit.
Cases citing this article
- Mary Josephine Gomez et al., vs. Roel Sta. Ines, et al, G.R. No. 132537, October 14, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Urduja Ortiz-Aquino vs. Letecia Ortillo, Lisette Ortillo, And Sheriff Of The Office Of The Provincial Sheriff Of Lingayen, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 257235, November 8, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cesar D. Taruc vs. Angelina D. Maximo, Maricel Buenaventura, George Jordan, and Jennifer Burgos, G.R. No. 227728, September 28, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose E. Honrado vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 166333, November 25, 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 →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.