Title
Dewara vs. Spouses Lamela
Case
G.R. No. 179010
Decision Date
Apr 11, 2011
Eduardo's civil liability from a car accident led to the levy of a property registered under his wife Elenita's name. The Supreme Court ruled the property was conjugal, not paraphernal, but required compliance with Civil Code obligations before levy. Interest on indemnity was imposed.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 142456)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Parties Involved
1.1. Petitioner: Elenita M. Dewara, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Ferdinand Magallanes. 1.2. Respondents: Spouses Ronnie and Gina Lamela and ex-officio sheriff Stenile Alvero.
  • Marital Relations
2.1. Eduardo Dewara (husband) and Elenita Dewara were married before the enactment of the Family Code; hence, their marital relations are governed by the Civil Code. 2.2. They were separated in fact, with Elenita working in California while Eduardo remained in Bacolod City.
  • The Incident and Criminal Proceedings
    • The Accident
1.1. On January 20, 1985, Eduardo, while driving a private jeep registered in Elenita’s name, hit respondent Ronnie Lamela.
  • Criminal Case Filed Against Eduardo
2.1. Ronnie filed a case for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. 2.2. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) convicted Eduardo and imposed a penalty of imprisonment as well as the payment of civil and moral damages. 2.3. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) later affirmed the MTCC’s decision, rendering it final and executory.
  • Execution of Judgment and Levy on Property
    • Lack of Assets under Eduardo’s Name
1.1. The writ of execution on Eduardo’s civil liability was returned unsatisfied as no property was found in his name.
  • Levy on Execution
2.1. Respondent Ronnie requested the City Sheriff, Stenile Alvero, to levy Lot No. 234-C (1,440 sq m, under TCT No. T-80054) registered in Elenita’s name to satisfy Eduardo’s judgment liability. 2.2. A notice of embargo was served, and subsequently, a public auction was conducted in which Ronnie emerged as the sole interested buyer. 2.3. The City Sheriff issued a certificate of sale to Ronnie and Gina Lamela.
  • Consolidation and Reissuance of Title
3.1. Respondent Ronnie caused a cadastral proceeding before the RTC which resulted in the cancellation of TCT No. T-80054 in Elenita’s name. 3.2. A new title (TCT No. 167403) was issued in the names of Ronnie and Gina Lamela.
  • Elenita’s Claim and Hence Litigation
    • Nature of the Property
1.1. Elenita claimed that the levied property was her paraphernal or exclusive property and not part of the conjugal partnership. 1.2. As such, it could not be used to satisfy the personal civil liability of her husband Eduardo.
  • Relief Sought
2.1. Annulment of the auction sale and the issuance of the new title in the respondents’ name. 2.2. A declaration that the property was acquired by her through onerous title from her father and her aunt.
  • Transaction History of the Subject Property
3.1. The property originally belonged to Elenita’s grandfather, Exequiel Magallanes, and was inherited by his children. 3.2. Her father, Jesus, and her aunt, Concepcion, eventually became her sellers in two separate transactions executed in 1975 for minimal consideration, which the RTC characterized as essentially gratuitous in nature.
  • Lower Court Decisions
    • Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision
1.1. The RTC ruled in favor of Elenita declaring the levy, auction, and title transfer null and void since the property was her paraphernal property. 1.2. The RTC ordered the cancellation of the new title and reinstatement of the original title in Elenita’s name.
  • Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
2.1. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that the property, acquired during their marriage using conjugal funds, was part of the conjugal partnership. 2.2. Consequently, it held that the property could be levied to satisfy Eduardo’s civil liabilities.
  • Petition for Review
3.1. Elenita, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA decision.

Issues:

  • Key Issue for Resolution
    • Whether Lot No. 234-C, originally registered in Elenita’s name, is her paraphernal (exclusive) property or is part of the conjugal partnership of gains with Eduardo.
  • Implications of the Issue
    • The classification of the property determines if it may be levied upon in execution of the civil indemnity adjudged against Eduardo in the criminal proceeding for serious physical injuries.
    • The issue further raises questions about the effect of the property's method of acquisition and the adequacy of the sale price in determining its character as a gift or a sale.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms