ELENITA M. DEWARA vs.
LAMELA
G.R. No. 179010 April 11, 2011
By: Valde, Glean Myrrh A.
QUESTION:
H and W were married before the enactment of the Family Code. H and W were separated-in-fact because W
went to work in the US while H stayed in the Philippines. In 1985, H, while driving a private jeep registered in
the name of W, hit R. R filed a criminal case for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence against
H before the MTCC. The MTCC found H guilty of the charge and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment and to pay civil indemnity for the damages. The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTCC and it
became final and executory. So, the writ of execution on the civil liability was served on H, but it was returned
unsatisfied because he had no property in his name. R requested the City Sheriff to levy on Lot which is
registered in the name of W, to satisfy the judgment on the civil liability of H. In the execution sale, there were
no interested buyers other than R. The City Sheriff issued a certificate of sale to R to satisfy the civil liability in
the decision against H. W sought the annulment of the sale and the annulment of the issuance of the new TCT
because the said property was her paraphernal or exclusive property and could not be made to answer for the
personal liability of H. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. 1) Is the subject property the
paraphernal/exclusive property of Elenita or the conjugal property of spouses Elenita and Eduardo? 2) May the
property be subject to levy and execution sale to answer for the civil liability adjudged against H in the criminal
case for serious physical injuries, which judgment had already attained finality?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Registration in the name of the husband or the wife
alone does not destroy this presumption. The separation-in-fact between the husband and the wife
without judicial approval shall not affect the conjugal partnership. There is no dispute that the subject
property was acquired by spouses Hand W during their marriage. It is also undisputed that their marital
relations are governed by the conjugal partnership of gains, since they were married before the
enactment of the Family Code and they did not execute any prenuptial agreement as to their property
relations. Thus, the legal presumption of the conjugal nature of the property applies to the lot in
question.
2) Yes. Even after having declared that the subject lot is the conjugal property of spouses H and W, it does
not necessarily follow that it may automatically be levied upon in an execution to answer for debts,
obligations, fines, or indemnities of one of the spouses. Before debts and obligations may be charged
against the conjugal partnership, it must be shown that the same were contracted for, or the debts and
obligations should have redounded to, the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Article 163 of the Civil
Code provides that Fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon the husband or the wife, as a rule,
may not be charged to the partnership. However, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive
property or if the property should be insufficient, the fines and indemnities may be enforced upon
the partnership assets only after the responsibilities enumerated in Article 161 of the Civil Code
have been covered. Nonetheless, at the time of the liquidation of the partnership such spouse shall be
charged for what has been paid for the purposes above-mentioned. The enumeration listed in Article 161
should first be complied with before the conjugal partnership may be held to answer for the liability
adjudged against H.
