Civrev Digest

7/26/2019 Civrev Digest

1/7

MARAMBA v. LOZANO

G.R. No. L-21533

June 29, 1967

Facts:

On November 3, 1948, the plaintiff filed an action against the defendant Nieves deLozano and her husband ascual Lozano for the collection of a sum of mone!" #fter trial,

the court a $uo on %une &3, 19'9 rendered its decision, the dispositive part of (hich is as

follo(s:

)*++-O+, the court hereb! renders .udgment, sentencing the defendants herein,

Nieves de Lozano and ascual Lozano, to pa! unto the herein plaintiff, *ermogenes

/aramba, the total sum of 0hree 0housand -ive *undred esos and even 2entavos3,'"56, (ith legal interest thereon from date of the filing of the instant complaint

until full! paid"

Not satisfied (ith the .udgment, the defendants interposed an appeal to the 2ourt of#ppeals but the appeal (as dismissed on /arch 3, 197 for failure of the defendants to

file their brief on time" #fter the record the case (as remanded to the court a $uo, a (ritof eecution (as issued, and on #ugust 18, 197 lev! (as made upon a parcel of land

covered b! transfer certificate title No" 819& of angasinan in the name of Nieves de

Lozano" 0he notice of sale at public auction (as published in accordance (ith la( andscheduled for eptember 17, 197"

On that date, ho(ever, defendant Nieves de Lozano made a partial satisfaction of the

.udgment in the amount &,", and re$uested for an ad.ournment of the sale toOctober &7, 197" On October 15, 197, she filed amended motion, dated October 14,

alleging that on November 11, 19'&, during the pendenc! of the case, defendant ascualLozano died and that the propert! levied upon (as her paraphernal propert!, and pra!ingthat her liabilit! be fied at onehalf 6 of the amount a(arded in the .udgment and that

pending the resolution of the issue an order be issued restraining the heriff from

carr!ing out the auction sale scheduled on October &7, 197" On that date the saleproceeded an!(a!, and the propert! of Nieves de Lozano (hich has been levied upon

(as sold to the .udgment creditor, as the highest bidder, for the amount of 4,15'"1&, the

balance of the .udgment debt"

ssues:

16 )hether or not the decision of the lo(er court dated %une &3, 19'9 could still be$uestioned;

&6 )hether or not the .udgment (as .oint; and

36 )hether or not the .udgment debt could be satisfied from the proceeds of the

properties sold at public auction"


2/7

Ru!"n#$

16 NO"


3/7

MAGALLON v, MON%&JO

G.R. No. 73733

'ece()e* 16, 19+6

Facts$

0he petition before this 2ourt sin=s the annulment of a (rit of eecution issued b! therespondent %udge in 2ivil 2ase No" 5&5 of her court 02 Bavao del ur6" aid case (as

instituted b! the plaintiffs private respondents herein6 against /artin Lacerna to compel

partition of parcel of land located in @arrio Casuga /unicipalit! of /agsa!sa!, Bavaodel ur, to (hich said defendant had perfected a claim b! homestead" 0he plaintiffs,

claiming to be the common children of /artin Lacerna and his (ife, +usta$uia ichan,

(ho died in 19'3, asserted a right to onehalf of the land as their motherAs share in her

con.ugal partnership (ith /artin" )hile said defendant denied having contractedmarriage (ith +usta$uia ichan D although he admitted living (ith her (ithout benefit

of marriage until she allegedl! abandoned him D as (ell as paternit! of t(o of the

plaintiffs (ho, he claimed, (ere fathered b! other men, the 0rial 2ourt gave his denials

no credence" aid 2ourt, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, found that /artinhad in fact been married to +usta$uia, and that the plaintiffs (ere his children (ith her"

0he 0rial 2ourt further found that /artin had begun (or=ing the homestead, and his rightto a patent to the land accrued, during his coverture (ith +usta$uia" On the basis of these

findings, the plaintiffs (ere declared entitled to the half of the land claimed b! them"

ssue$

)hether or not a (ife, not a part! to an action is bound b! a .udgment therein for or

against her husband (ith respect to communit! or homestead propert! or propert! held as

an estate in entiret!"

Ru!"n#$

2ommunit! propert!"


4/7

cannot believe that she never became a(are of the litigation concerning the land until

presented (ith the (rit of eecution" )hat is far more probable and credible is that she

has =no(n of the la(suit since 19'7 (hen /artin Lacerna >married> her"

-rom the averments of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner relies mainl!, if not

solel!, on the fact that the certificate of title to the land carries her name as the >(ife> ofthe o(ner named therein, /artin Lacerna" #s alread! observed, such entr! on the

certificate of title has been established b! evidence no longer disputable as resulting from

a mista=e if, indeed, it (as not procured through fraud" /oreover, on the authorit! ofLitam vs" ivera 17and tuart vs" ?atco, 1+the phrase >married to +pifania /agallon

(ritten after the name of /artin Lacerna in said certificate of title is merel! descriptive

of the civil status of /artin Lacerna, the registered o(ner, and does not necessaril! prove

that the land is >con.ugal> propert! of Lacerna and petitioner here!n" Neither canpetitioner invo=e the presumption established in #rticle 17 of the 2ivil 2ode that

propert! ac$uired during the marriage belongs to the con.ugal partnership, there being no

proof of her alleged marriage to /artin Lacerna ecept that (hich arises b! implication

from the aforestated entr! in the certificate of title and for the far more compelling reasonthat the homestead claim on the land (as sho(n to have been perfected during /artin

LacernaAs marriage to +usta$uia ichan, mother of the private respondents" 0he ruling in/aramba vs" Lozano 19that the presumption does not operate (here there is no sho(ing

as to (hen propert! alleged to be con.ugal (as ac$uired applies (ith even greater force

here"

N R&$ &%A%& OF NARO A'LLA


5/7

G.R. No. L-/+137

Octo)e* /, 19/3

Facts$

0his case is an incident of the settlement of the testate estate of the late Narciso #"

adilla"


6/7

land to the con.ugal partnership" uch a mode of using the land, namel!, b! erecting a

building thereon, is simpl! an eercise of the right of usufruct pertaining to the con.ugal

partnership over the (ifeAs land"


7/7

GR No. 7+2

Au#ust 19, 1991

Facts$

omario *enson married Catrina on %anuar! 1974" 0he! had 3 children ho(ever, even

during the earl! !ears of their marriage, the spouses had been most of the time livingseparatel!" Buring the marriage or on about %anuar! 1951, the husband bought a parcel

of land in #ngeles from his father using the mone! borro(ed from an officemate"

ometime in %une 195&, Catrina entered an agreement (ith #nita 2han (here the latterconsigned the former pieces of .e(elr! valued at 3&1,83"9'" Catrina failed to return

the same (ithin the & da! period thus #nita demanded pa!ment of their value" Catrina

issued in eptember 195&, chec= of '', (hich (as dishonored due to lac= of funds"

0he spouses #nita 2han and ic=! )ong filed action for collection of the sum of mone!against Catrina and her husband omarico" 0he repl! (ith counterclaim filed (as onl!

in behalf of Catrina" 0rial court ruled in favor of the )ongs then a (rit of eecution (as

thereafter issued upon the 4 lots in #ngeles 2it! all in the name of omarico *enson

married to Catrina *enson" & of the lots (ere sold at public auction to %uanito antos andthe other t(o (ith Leonardo %oson" # month before such redemption, omarico filed an

action for annulment of the decision including the (rit and lev! of eecution"

ssue$

)hether or not debt of the (ife (ithout the =no(ledge of the husband can be satisfiedthrough the con.ugal propert!"

Ru!"n#$

No" 0he spouses had in fact been separated (hen the (ife entered into the business deal(ith #nita" 0he husband had nothing to do (ith the business transactions of Catrina nor

authorized her to enter into such" 0he properties in #ngeles (ere ac$uired during the

marriage (ith unclear proof (here the husband obtained the mone! to repa! the loan"*ence, it is presumed to belong in the con.ugal partnership in the absence of proof that

the! are eclusive propert! of the husband and even though the! had been living

separatel!" # (ife ma! bind the con.ugal partnership onl! (hen she purchases thingsnecessar! for support of the famil!" 0he (rit of eecution cannot be issued against

omarico and the eecution of .udgments etends onl! over properties belonging to the

.udgment debtor" 0he con.ugal properties cannot ans(er for CatrinaGs obligations as she

eclusivel! incurred the latter (ithout the consent of her husband nor the! did redound tothe benefit of the famil!" 0here (as also no evidence submitted that the administration of

the partnership had been transferred to Catrina b! omarico before said obligations (ere

incurred"

Documents

Civrev Digest