Few concepts in Philippine law evoke as much sympathy—and misunderstanding—as the family home. Enshrined in the Family Code as a sanctuary against execution, it is often invoked as a shield by distressed debtors. But as the Supreme Court recently reminded us, even the most humane protections are not licenses for opportunism.
In Banco Maximo, Inc. v. Pelayo (G.R. No. 257251, 18 August 2025), the Supreme Court confronted a familiar but troubling scenario. A residential property long used as a family dwelling was transferred, mortgaged, foreclosed, and only then—after all else failed—declared a “family home” allegedly exempt from execution. The High Court was not convinced.
The facts were straightforward. Following the death of the family patriarch, the surviving heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement waiving their rights over the family property in favor of one sibling. Armed with a tax declaration in his name, a loan was obtained from a bank, secured by a real estate mortgage. Default followed. So did foreclosure. Only after negotiations for redemption collapsed did the other heirs surface, seeking to nullify the mortgage and foreclosure on the ground that the property was a family home.
The Court of Appeals agreed with them. The Supreme Court did not.
In reversing the appellate court, the High Tribunal made several points that every lawyer, banker, and property owner should take to heart.
First, the family home exemption is not automatic. While a family home is deemed constituted upon actual occupancy, its exemption from execution must be timely and properly asserted. Jurisprudence has long required that the claim be raised before the sheriff and prior to the auction sale. To sleep on this right is to lose it. Courts do not reward ambush defenses raised only after title has changed hands.
Second, the exemption is a personal privilege. It can only be invoked by those who have a legal interest in the property. In this case, the heirs had voluntarily waived all their rights years earlier. Having divested themselves of ownership, they had no standing to later reclaim the property under the guise of family home protection.
Third, and most instructive, even a valid family home is not absolute. Article 155 of the Family Code expressly provides that family homes are not exempt from execution for debts secured by mortgages on the premises—whether constituted before or after the family home itself. In other words, one cannot mortgage a property, enjoy the proceeds, and later repudiate the obligation by invoking the very home that was offered as security.
Equally important was the Court’s rebuke of judicial overreach. The appellate court nullified not only the mortgage and foreclosure, but even the extrajudicial settlement—despite the absence of any prayer to do so. Courts, the Supreme Court stressed, cannot decide issues not raised by the parties. To do otherwise is not merely error; it is void.
At its core, the decision is a defense of good faith and contractual stability. Banks and lenders rely on public records and voluntary acts of borrowers. To allow after-the-fact invocations of family home protection would undermine confidence in secured transactions and invite abuse.
The family home remains a vital social institution. But it is not a magic wand to erase obligations freely assumed. Rights, like remedies, must be asserted at the proper time—or not at all. In law, as in life, equity favors the vigilant, not those who remember their rights only when everything else has failed
