FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between petitioner, Florante F. Manacop, and private respondent over the payment of a subcontract cost. Private respondent filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment against petitioner's corporation, Manacop Construction. The court issued a writ of attachment on a parcel of land owned by petitioner, which triggered the attachment of his property.

Private respondent later submitted an amended complaint to substitute Manacop Construction with petitioner as defendant. Petitioner filed an answer to the amended complaint and also filed an omnibus motion raising objections to the issuance of the writ of attachment. However, both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed petitioner's challenge and upheld the validity of the attachment.

Petitioner argues that the writ of attachment should not be implemented on his family home, which is ordinarily exempt from attachment. He also argues that he was not yet a defendant in the case when the writ was issued. Nonetheless, the court rejected these arguments, stating that the omnibus motion rule requires all available objections to be raised in a single motion and that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of attachment.

ISSUES:

1. Did respondent court err in dismissing the challenge posed by petitioner against the denial of his omnibus motion?

RULING:

1. No, respondent court did not err in dismissing the challenge.

PRINCIPLES:

• A verified statement incorporated in the complaint without a separate affidavit is sufficient and valid to obtain an attachment (Nasser vs. Court of Appeals).

• The family home exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code does not have retroactive effect and only applies to family residences existing at the time of the effectivity of the Family Code (Modequillo vs. Breva).

• A motion attacking a pleading or proceeding should include all objections then available, and any objections not included shall be deemed waived (Section 8, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court).

• The validity of acts done during the period before the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant's person is not dependent on the actual obtention of jurisdiction over the defendant's person (Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals).