Manacop vs. Court of Appeals

A property occupied as a family residence prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is deemed constituted as a family home only from the Code's effectivity date (August 3, 1988) and is not exempt from attachment for debts incurred before that date. A writ of preliminary attachment may be validly issued at the commencement of an action, even before the defendant is served with summons.

Private respondent F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. filed a complaint for a sum of money against Manacop Construction Co., Inc. for failure to pay a subcontract cost. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, leading to the attachment of a parcel of land in Quezon City owned by Florante F. Manacop, the corporation's president. The complaint was later amended to substitute the corporation with Manacop individually, alleging he was doing business under the corporate name. Manacop then filed an omnibus motion to quash the writ, which was denied by the trial court and, subsequently, by the Court of Appeals.

• Nature of the Action: Private respondent F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. filed a civil complaint for a sum of money against Manacop Construction Co., Inc., alleging non-payment of a subcontract cost based on a deed of assignment.
• Issuance of Writ: The trial court granted the prayer for preliminary attachment. The writ was issued and implemented by attaching a parcel of land in Quezon City registered in the name of Florante F. Manacop, the corporation's president.
• Amendment of Complaint: Private respondent filed an amended complaint, seeking to substitute the corporate defendant with Florante F. Manacop individually, alleging he was "doing business under the name and style of F.F. Manacop Construction Co., Inc."
• Motion to Quash: Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to quash the writ, arguing: (1) the writ was issued without a separate supporting affidavit; (2) the writ was improperly issued prior to his being impleaded as a defendant; and (3) the attached property was his family home, exempt from attachment.
• Lower Court Rulings: The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's subsequent certiorari petition, affirming the trial court's orders.

• Affidavit Requirement: Petitioner argued that the writ of attachment was issued irregularly because no separate affidavit was filed to support the application, as required by the Rules of Court.
• Premature Issuance: Petitioner maintained that the writ was void because it was issued and implemented against him before he was formally substituted as a defendant and before the court acquired jurisdiction over his person.
• Family Home Exemption: Petitioner contended that the attached property had been occupied by his family as their residence since 1972 and was therefore a family home exempt from attachment under the Family Code.
• Effect of Amended Complaint: Petitioner asserted that the filing of the amended complaint, which superseded the original, had the effect of nullifying the writ of attachment issued based on the original complaint.
• Piercing the Corporate Veil: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals should not have pierced the veil of corporate fiction, as he and his corporation were separate and distinct persons, and thus his personal property could not be attached for a corporate debt.

• Sufficiency of Verification: Respondent countered that the verified allegations in the original and amended complaints substantially complied with the affidavit requirement for the issuance of a writ of attachment.
• Validity of Pre-Summons Attachment: Respondent argued that a writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy that may be validly applied for and granted at the commencement of an action, even before the defendant is served with summons.
• Non-Exempt Status of Property: Respondent contended that the property was not exempt because the debt was incurred on November 25, 1987, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. Under Article 155 of the Code, family homes are not exempt from debts incurred prior to their constitution.
• Waiver of Objection: Respondent asserted that petitioner's failure to raise the argument regarding the effect of the amended complaint in his original Omnibus Motion constituted a waiver under the omnibus motion rule.

• Affidavit Requirement: Whether a writ of preliminary attachment may be validly issued based on a verified complaint without a separate supporting affidavit.
• Jurisdictional Prerequisite: Whether a court may validly issue a writ of preliminary attachment before acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
• Family Home Exemption: Whether the property attached was exempt from attachment as a family home under the Family Code.
• Effect of Amended Complaint: Whether the filing of an amended complaint that supersedes the original has the effect of nullifying a writ of attachment issued based on the original complaint.
• Omnibus Motion Rule: Whether petitioner's failure to raise the argument on the effect of the amended complaint in his Omnibus Motion barred him from raising it later.

• Affidavit Requirement: The writ was validly issued. A verified statement incorporated in the complaint, without a separate affidavit, constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement for obtaining a writ of attachment, as established in Nasser v. Court of Appeals.
• Jurisdictional Prerequisite: The issuance was proper. A writ of preliminary attachment may be validly applied for and granted at the commencement of an action (i.e., upon filing of the complaint), even before the defendant is served with summons or the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the plaintiff is sufficient for the court to act on the application for a provisional remedy.
• Family Home Exemption: The property was not exempt. The Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, does not have retroactive effect regarding the exemption of family homes from execution for debts incurred prior to its effectivity. Since petitioner's debt was incurred in November 1987, it falls squarely under the exception in Article 155(2) of the Family Code for debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home.
• Effect of Amended Complaint & Omnibus Motion Rule: The argument was deemed waived. Petitioner's failure to raise the issue of the amended complaint's effect on the writ in his Omnibus Motion before the trial court barred him from raising it for the first time on appeal, pursuant to the omnibus motion rule (Section 8, Rule 15, Revised Rules of Court).

• Non-Retroactivity of Family Home Exemption — The provisions of the Family Code on the family home are prospective. A family residence existing at the Code's effectivity is deemed constituted as a family home only from August 3, 1988, and is not exempt from liabilities incurred before that date. The exemption under Article 155 does not apply retroactively to pre-existing debts.
• Availability of Preliminary Attachment Prior to Service of Summons — A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy that may be applied for and granted at the commencement of an action (upon filing of the complaint), even before the defendant is served with summons or the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the plaintiff is sufficient.
• Omnibus Motion Rule — A motion attacking a pleading or proceeding must include all objections then available. Objections not so included are deemed waived. This rule prevents multiplicity of motions and piecemeal litigation.

• "Article 162 simply means that all existing family residences at the time of the effectivity of the Family Code, are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code. Article 162 does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect." — This passage clarifies the prospective application of the Family Code's family home provisions.
• "It is wrong to assume that the validity of acts done during this period [between filing complaint and service of summons] should be dependent on, or held in suspension until, the actual obtention of jurisdiction over the defendant's person." — This excerpt, cited from Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, establishes that courts can validly act on provisional remedies before acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant.

• Nasser v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 783 — Applied as controlling precedent for the rule that a verified complaint can serve as the substantial equivalent of a separate affidavit for the issuance of a writ of attachment.
• Modequillo v. Breva, 185 SCRA 766 — Followed and applied directly. The Court reiterated its ruling therein that the Family Code's provisions on family homes are not retroactive and that a family home is not exempt from debts incurred prior to the Code's effectivity.
• Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 343 — Cited and applied as persuasive authority on the principle that a court may validly issue a writ of preliminary attachment before acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant's person.

• Article 153, Family Code — Provides that the family home is deemed constituted from the time it is occupied as a family residence. The Court interpreted this provision prospectively, not retroactively.
• Article 155(2), Family Code — Provides that the family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment except for debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home. This exception was applied to defeat petitioner's claim of exemption.
• Article 162, Family Code — Provides that the provisions on family homes "shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable." The Court held this does not grant retroactive effect to the exemption.
• Section 8, Rule 15, Revised Rules of Court (Omnibus Motion Rule) — Provides that a motion attacking a pleading or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. This rule was applied to bar petitioner's argument regarding the amended complaint.

• Justice Abdulwahid A. Bidin
• Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
• Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero

• Justice Isagani A. Cruz (concurring) — While concurring in the result, Justice Cruz noted separately that he agreed the writ of attachment could issue as stated, but emphasized that the defendant is bound by the attachment only upon service of summons. This highlights a nuanced view on the binding effect of the writ prior to the defendant being formally brought under the court's jurisdiction.