Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 104875 November 13, 1992
FLORANTE F. MANACOP, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEAL !"# F.F. CRU$ % CO., &NC., respondents.
MELO, '.(
Following the dismissal of his petition for certiorari in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 2!"# $%
the &hirteenth 'ivision of respondent Co(rt )*(stice +(ena )P,, Gon-aga-Re%es
and A$ad Santos, *r., **.. Page !/, Rollo,, petitioner airs his concern over the
propriet% thereof $% claiming in the petition at hand that the disposition, in
practical effect, allows a writ of preliminar% attachment iss(ed $% the co(rt of
origin against his corporation to $e implemented on his famil% home which is
ordinaril% e0empt from the mesne process.
1wing to the fail(re to pa% the s($-contract cost p(rs(ant to a deed of
assignment signed $etween petitioner2s corporation and private respondent
herein, the latter filed on *(l% , #343, a complaint for a s(m of mone%, with a
pra%er for preliminar% attachment, against the former. As a conse5(ence of the
order on *(l% 24, #343, the corresponding writ for the provisional remed% was
iss(ed on A(g(st ##, #343 which triggered the attachment of a parcel of land in
6(e-on Cit% owned $% 7anacop Constr(ction President Florante F. 7anacop,
herein petitioner.
8n lie( of the original complaint, private respondent s($mitted an amended
complaint on A(g(st #4, #343 intended to s($stit(te 7anacop Constr(ction
with Florante F. 7anacop as defendant who is 9doing $(siness (nder the name
and st%le of F.F. 7anacop Constr(ction Co., 8nc.9. After the motion for iss(ance
of s(mmons to the s($stit(ted defendant $elow was granted, petitioner filed his
answer to the amended complaint on Novem$er 2/, #343.
Petitioner2s 1mni$(s 7otion filed on Septem$er ", #33/ gro(nded on )#,
irreg(larit% that attended the iss(ance of the disp(ted writ inspite the a$sence
of an affidavit therefor. )2, the feasi$ilit% of (tili-ing the writ prior to his
s($mission as part%-defendant, and ), e0emption from attachment of his famil%
home )page , Petition. page 4,Rollo,, did not merit the serio(s consideration of
the co(rt of origin. &his nonchalant response constrained petitioner to elevate
the matter to respondent co(rt which, as aforesaid, agreed with the trial co(rt
on the strength of the ens(ing o$servations:
Anent the petitioner2s claim that the writ of attachment was iss(ed witho(t ;(risdiction $eca(se
of the lac< of s(pporting affidavit, =e s($scri$e to the recent r(ling of the >ighest &ri$(nal that
a verified statement incorporated in the complaint witho(t a separate affidavit is s(fficient and
valid to o$tain the attachment )Nasser vs. Co(rt of Appeals, #3# SCRA ?4,. 8n the case at $ar,
the original as well as the amended complaint filed $% herein private respondent were verified, in
s($stantial compliance with the re5(irements of the law.
Finall%, the petitioner insists that the attached propert% is a famil% home, having $een occ(pied
$% him and his famil% since #3?2, and is therefore e0empt from attachment.
&he contention is not well-ta<en.
=hile Article #" of the Famil% Code provides that the famil% home is deemed constit(ted on a
ho(se and lot from the time it is occ(pied as a famil% residence, it does not mean that said
article has a retroactive effect s(ch that all e0isting famil% residences, petitioner2s incl(ded, are
deemed to have $een constit(ted as famil% homes at the time of their occ(pation prior to the
effectivit% of the Famil% Code and henceforth, are e0empt from e0ec(tion for the pa%ment of
o$ligations inc(rred $efore the effectivit% of the Famil% Code on A(g(st , #344 )7onde5(illo vs.
+reva, #4" SCRA ?!!,. Neither does Article #!2 of said Code state that the provisions of
Chapter 2, &itle @ thereof have retroactive effect. 8t simpl% means that all e0isting famil%
residences at the time of the effectivit% of the Famil% Code are considered famil% homes and are
prospectivel% entitled to the $enefits accorded to a famil% home (nder the Famil% Code
)7onde5(illo vs. +reva, s(pra,. Since petitioner2s de$t was inc(rred as earl% as Novem$er 2",
#34?, it preceded the effectivit% of the Famil% Code. >is propert% is therefore not e0empt from
attachment )Anne0 919, Plaintiff2s Position Paper and 7emorand(m of A(thorities, p. ?4,. )pp. "-
!, 'ecision. pp. !A-!", Rollo,.
&he attempt to reconsider respondent co(rt2s stance was to no avail )page ?",
Rollo,. hence, the petition at $ar.
'id respondent co(rt err in dismissing the challenge posed $% petitioner against
the denial of his omni$(s motionB
=e are not read% to accept the negative aspersions p(t forward $% petitioner
against respondent co(rt in the petition $efore Cs.
Petitioner harps on the s(pposition that the appellate co(rt sho(ld not have
pierced the veil of corporate fiction $eca(se he is distinct from the personalit% of
his corporation and, therefore, the writ of attachment iss(ed against the
corporation cannot $e (sed to place his own famil% home in c(stodia legis. &his
p(erile arg(ment m(st s(ffer re;ection since the doctrine in commercial law
adverted to and emplo%ed in e0c(lpation $% petitioner, d(ring the pendenc% of
his petition for certiorari in the appellate co(rt and even at this stage, ma% not
$e permitted to simpl% spro(t from nowhere for s(ch s($tle e0periment is
prescri$ed $% the omni$(s motion r(le (nder Section 4, R(le #" of the Revised
R(les of Co(rt, th(s:
A motion attac<ing a pleading or a proceeding shall incl(de all o$;ections then availa$le, and all
o$;ections not so incl(ded shall $e deemed waived.
&he spirit that s(rro(nds the foregoing stat(tor% norm is to re5(ire the movant to
raise all availa$le e0ceptions for relief d(ring a single opport(nit% so that
m(ltiple and piece-meal o$;ections ma% $e avoided )Rafanan, et al. vs. Rafanan,
34 Phil. #!2 D#3""E. # 7artin, R(les of Co(rt with Notes and Comments, #343
Rev. Fdition, p. A32. Savit vs. Rodas, ? Phil. #/ D#3A#E,.
Another mista<en notion entertained $% petitioner concerns the impropriet% of
iss(ing the writ of attachment on A(g(st ##, #343 when he 9was not %et a
defendant in this case.9 &his erroneo(s perception seems to s(ggest that
;(risdiction over the person of petitioner, as defendant $elow, m(st initiall%
attach $efore the provisional remed% involved herein can $e re5(ested $% a
plaintiff. A contrario, Chief *(stice Narvasa o$literated this (nfo(nded assertion
in 'avao Gight and Power Co., 8nc. vs. Co(rt of Appeals )2/A SCRA D#33#E,
whose dissertation on the s($;ect as related and applied to the present in5(ir%
is 5(ite enlightening:
8t is incorrect to theori-e that after an action or proceeding has $een commenced and ;(risdiction
over the person of the plaintiff has $een vested in the co(rt, $(t $efore the ac5(isition of
;(risdiction over the person of the defendant )either $% service of s(mmons or his vol(ntar%
s($mission to the co(rt2s a(thorit%,, nothing can $e validl% done $% the plaintiff or the co(rt. 8t is
wrong to ass(me that the validit% of acts done d(ring this period sho(ld $e dependent on, or
held in s(spension (ntil, the act(al o$tention of ;(risdiction over the defendant2s person. &he
o$tention $% the co(rt of ;(risdiction over the person of the defendant is one thing. 5(ite another
is the ac5(isition of ;(risdiction over the person of the plaintiff or over the s($;ect-matter or
nat(re of the action, or the res or o$;ect thereof.
An action or proceeding is commenced $% the filing of the complaint or other initiator% pleading.
+% that act, the ;(risdiction of the co(rt over the s($;ect matter or nat(re of the action or
proceeding is invo<ed or called into activit%, and it th(s that the co(rt ac5(ires over said s($;ect
matter or nat(re of the action. And it is $% that self-same act of the plaintiff )or petitioner, of
filing the complaint )or other appropriate pleading, H $% which he signifies his s($mission to the
co(rt2s power and a(thorit% H that ;(risdiction is ac5(ired $% the co(rt over his person. 1n the
other hand, ;(risdiction over the person of the defendant is o$tained, as a$ove stated, $% the
service of s(mmons or other coercive process (pon him or $% his vol(ntar% s($mission to the
a(thorit% of the co(rt.
&he events that follow the filing of the complaint as a matter of ro(tine are well <nown. After the
complaint is filed, s(mmons iss(es to the defendant, the s(mmons is then transmitted to the
sheriff, and finall%, service of the s(mmons is effected on the defendant in an% of the wa%s
a(thori-ed $% the R(les of Co(rt. &here is th(s ordinaril% some apprecia$le interval of time
$etween the da% of filing of the complaint and the da% of service of s(mmons of the defendant.
'(ring this period, different acts ma% $e done $% the plaintiff or $% the Co(rt, which are of
(n5(estiona$le validit% and propriet%. Among these, for e0ample, are the appointment of a
g(ardian ad litem, the grant of a(thorit% to the plaintiff to prosec(te the s(it as a pa(per litigant,
the amendment of the complaint $% the plaintiff as a matter of right witho(t leave of co(rt,
a(thori-ation $% the Co(rt of service of s(mmons $% p($lication, the dismissal of the action $%
the plaintiff on mere notice.
&his, too, is tr(e with regard to the provisional remedies of preliminar% attachment, preliminar%
in;(nction, receivership or replevin. &he% ma% $e validl% and properl% applied for and granted even
$efore the defendant is s(mmoned or heard from.
A preliminar% attachment ma% $e defined, paraphrasing the R(les of Co(rt, as the provisional
remed% in virt(e of which a plaintiff or other proper part% ma%, at the commencement of the
action or at an% time thereafter, have the propert% of the adverse part% ta<en into the c(stod% of
the co(rt as sec(rit% for the satisfaction of an% ;(dgment that ma% $e recovered. 8t is a remed%
which is p(rel% stat(tor% in respect of which the law re5(ires a strict constr(ction of the
provisions granting it. =ithal no principle, stat(tor% or ;(rispr(dential, prohi$its its iss(ance $%
an% co(rt $efore ac5(isition of ;(risdiction over the person of the defendant.
R(le in fact spea<s of the grant of the remed% 9at the commencement of the action or at an%
time thereafter,9 &he phrase, 9at the commencement of the action,9 o$vio(sl% refers to the date
of the filing of the complaint H which, as a$ove pointed o(t, is the date that mar<s 9the
commencement of the action. and the reference plainl% is to a time $efore s(mmons is served
on the defendant, or even $efore s(mmons iss(es. =hat the r(le is sa%ing 5(ite clearl% is that
after an action is properl% commenced H $% the filing of the complaint and the pa%ment of all
re5(isite doc<et and other fees H the plaintiff ma% appl% for and o$tain a writ of preliminar%
attachment (pon f(lfillment of the pertinent re5(isites laid down $% law, and that he ma% do so
at an% time, either $efore or after service of s(mmons on the defendant. And this indeed, has
$een the immemorial practice sanctioned $% the co(rts: for the plaintiff or other proper part% to
incorporate the application for attachment in the complaint or other appropriate pleading
)co(nterclaim, cross-claim, third-part% claim, and for the &rial Co(rt to iss(e the writ e0-parte at
the commencement application otherwise s(fficient in form and s($stance. )at pp. A?-"/.,
Petitioner see<s to capitali-e on the legal reperc(ssion that ipso facto too<
place when the complaint against him was amended. >e proffers the idea that
the e0tinction of a complaint via a s(perseding one carries with it the cessation
of the ancilliar% writ of preliminar% attachment. =e co(ld have agreed with
petitioner along this line had he e0po(nded the adverse aftermath of an
amended complaint in his omni$(s motion. +(t the fo(r corners of his motion in
this respect filed on Septem$er ", #33/ are circ(mscri$ed $% other salient
points set forth $% Cs relative to the propriet% of the assailed writ itself. &his
$eing so, petitioner2s eleventh ho(r effort in pressing a cr(cial factor for
e0c(lpation m(st $e rendered ineffective and $arred $% the omni$(s motion r(le.
Gastl%, petitioner is one of the $elief that his a$ode at 6(e-on Cit% since #3?2 is
a famil% home within the p(rview of the Famil% Code and therefore sho(ld not
have $een s($;ected to the ve0atio(s writ. Iet, petitioner m(st concede that
respondent co(rt properl% applied the disc(ssion conve%ed $% *(stice Ganca%co
in this regard when he spo<e for the First 'ivision of this Co(rt in 7ode5(illo vs.
+reva )#4" SCRA ?!! D#33/E, that:
Article #"" of the Famil% Code also provides as follows:
Art. #"". &he famil% home shall $e e0empt from e0ec(tion, forced sale or attachment e0cept:
)#, For non-pa%ment of ta0es.
)2, For de$ts inc(rred prior to the constit(tion of the famil% home.
), For de$ts sec(red $% mortgages on the premises $efore or after s(ch constit(tion. and
)A, For de$ts d(e to la$orers, mechanics, architects, $(ilders, materialmen and others who
have rendered service for the constr(ction of the $(ilding.
&he e0emption provided as aforestated is effective from the time of the constit(tion of the famil%
home as s(ch, and lasts so long as an% of its $eneficiaries act(all% resides therein.
8n the present case, the residential ho(se and lot of petitioner was constit(ted as a famil% home
whether ;(diciall% or e0tra;(diciall% (nder the Civil Code. 8t $ecame a famil% home $% operation of
law (nder Article #" of the Famil% Code. 8t is deemed constit(ted as a famil% home (pon the
effectivit% of the Famil% Code on A(g(st , #344 not A(g(st A, one %ear after its p($lication in
the 7anila Chronicle on A(g(st A, #34? )#344 $eing a leap %ear,.
&he contention of petitioner that it sho(ld $e considered a famil% home from the time it was
occ(pied $% petitioner and his famil% in #3!3 is not well-ta<en. Cnder Article #!2 of the Famil%
Code, it is provided that 9the provisions of this Chapter shall also govern e0isting famil%
residences insofar as said provisions are applica$le.9 8t does not mean that Articles #"2 and
#" of said Code have a retroactive effect s(ch that all e0isting famil% residences are deemed to
have $een constit(ted as famil% homes at the time of their occ(pation prior to the effectivit% of
the Famil% Code and are e0empt from e0ec(tion for the pa%ment of o$ligations inc(rred $efore
the effectivit% of the Famil% Code. Article #!2 simpl% means that all e0isting famil% residences at
the time of the effectivit% of the Famil% Code, are considered famil% homes and are prospectivel%
entitled to the $enefits accorded to a famil% home (nder the Famil% Code. Article #!2 does not
state that the provisions of Chapter 2, &itle @ have a retroactive effect.
8s the famil% home of petitioner e0empt from e0ec(tion of the mone% ;(dgment aforecitedB No.
&he de$t or lia$ilit% which was the $asis of the ;(dgment arose or was inc(rred at the time of the
vehic(lar accident on 7arch #!, #3?! and the mone% ;(dgment arising therefrom was rendered
$% the appellate co(rt on *an(ar% 23, #344. +oth preceded the effectivit% of the Famil% Code on
A(g(st , #344. &his case does not fall (nder the e0emptions from e0ec(tion provided in the
Famil% Code. )at pp. ??#-??2,.
@eril%, according to petitioner, his de$t was inc(rred in #34? or prior to the
effectivit% on A(g(st , #344 of the Famil% Code )page #?, petition. page 22,
Rollo,. &his fact alone will militate heavil% against the so-called e0emption $%
sheer force of e0cl(sion em$odied (nder paragraph 2, Article #"" of the Famil%
Code cited in 7ode5(illo.
=>FRFF1RF, the petition is here$% '8S78SSF', with costs against petitioner.
S1 1R'FRF'.
+idin, 'avide and Romero, **., conc(r.
e)!r!*e O)+"+o",
GUT&ERRE$, '.( conc(rring:
8 conc(r on the (nderstanding that the writ of attachment ma% iss(e as a$ove-
stated $(t the defendant is $o(nd onl% (pon service of s(mmons.
e)!r!*e O)+"+o",
GUT&ERRE$, '.( conc(rring:
8 conc(r on the (nderstanding that the writ of attachment ma% iss(e as a$ove-
stated $(t the defendant is $o(nd onl% (pon service of s(mmons.