Case Digest (G.R. No. 177667)
Facts:
The case involves Cleodia U. Francisco and Ceamantha U. Francisco, represented by their grandmother, Dra. Maida G. Uriarte, as the petitioners, against spouses Jorge C. Gonzales and Purificacion W. Gonzales as the respondents. The events stem from a Partial Decision rendered on November 29, 2000, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 144, in Civil Case No. 93-2289, which declared the nullity of the marriage between Cleodualdo M. Francisco and Michele Uriarte Francisco. The Partial Decision approved a Compromise Agreement concerning their children, Cleodia and Ceamantha, setting out rights and responsibilities regarding their support, custody, visitation, and property division. Specifically, the Compromise Agreement stated that the conjugal property, a house and lot located in Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, would be transferred to the children when they reached certain ages, subject to usufructuary rights held by Cleodualdo.
Separately, spouses Jorge and Purificacion G
Case Digest (G.R. No. 177667)
Facts:
- Background of the Parties and Property
- Petitioners Cleodia U. Francisco and Ceamantha U. Francisco are minor children represented by their grandmother, Dra. Maida G. Uriarte.
- They are the offspring of Cleodualdo M. Francisco and Michele Uriarte Francisco.
- The property in issue is a house and lot located at 410 Taal St., Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 167907.
- The title reflects the ownership as “Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married to Michele U. Francisco,” indicating a conjugal partnership under the Civil Code applicable prior to the effectivity of the Family Code.
- The Compromise Agreement and Its Provisions
- In a Partial Decision rendered on November 29, 2000, by the RTC of Makati, Branch 144, in Civil Case No. 93-2289 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, a Compromise Agreement was approved.
- Key provisions of the Compromise Agreement include:
- The title and ownership of the conjugal property shall be transferred by way of a deed of donation to the petitioners (Cleodia and Ceamantha) when they attain the ages of nineteen and eighteen respectively.
- Cleodualdo is to retain usufructuary rights over the property until he reaches the age of 65.
- It signals a waiver of the rights of both Michele and Cleodualdo over the property in favor of the minor children.
- Parallel Proceedings Involving the Property
- An unlawful detainer with preliminary attachment case was filed by respondents Jorge C. Gonzales and Purificacion W. Gonzales against George Zoltan Matrai and Michele.
- The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Muntinlupa, Branch 80, rendered a Decision on May 10, 2001, ordering Matrai and Michele to vacate the leased premises at 264 Lanka Drive, Ayala Alabang Village, and to pay rentals, unpaid telephone bills, and attorney’s fees.
- Pending appeal, an order for execution of the MeTC decision was granted by the RTC of Muntinlupa, Branch 256, resulting in a Notice of Sale by Execution on the conjugal property under TCT No. 167907.
- Actions Taken by the Petitioners and the Court’s Procedural History
- Upon learning of the scheduled auction, petitioners’ grandmother filed with the RTC an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and a Very Urgent Motion to Stop Sale by Execution.
- These motions were denied in the RTC Order dated June 4, 2003.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was likewise denied per the RTC Order dated July 31, 2003.
- While petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC issued further orders:
- An Order dated July 8, 2005, granting respondents’ petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title.
- An Order dated February 13, 2006, granting respondents’ motion for a writ of possession.
- On April 30, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC Orders denying the petitioners’ attempts to stop the execution sale.
- Title Annotated with Critical Information
- Before the issuance of the notice of levy on execution, the title already bore an inscription (annotated on October 22, 2001) declaring:
- The nullification of the marriage between Michele and Cleodualdo, effective as of July 4, 2001.
- The mandate that ownership of the property shall be transferred by donation to the petitioners when they reach the specified ages.
- This annotation should have alerted the RTC and the sheriff that the property was not entirely subject to the debts of Michele and Matrai.
- Petitioners’ Arguments and Contentions
- Petitioners asserted that:
- They were the rightful owners of the property pursuant to the final and approved Partial Decision in Civil Case No. 93-2289.
- Their parents had waived their rights over the property in favor of them, as expressed in the Compromise Agreement.
- The obligation of Michele in the unlawful detainer (ejectment) case did not benefit the family as a whole.
- Michele’s liability was a joint obligation with Matrai, not one that could be enforced against the entire conjugal partnership.
- These arguments underline that the execution sale should not have been extended to the conjugal property given the waiver and the nature of the underlying debt.
Issues:
- Validity of the Execution Sale on the Conjugal Property
- Whether the RTC erred in ordering the execution, levy, and sale of the subject property given its conjugal nature and the existing annotations on the title.
- The question of whether the property, registered under “Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married to Michele U. Francisco,” could be executed upon for liabilities incurred solely by Michele and her partner.
- Interpretation of the Compromise Agreement
- Whether the Compromise Agreement’s provision effecting the transfer of title to petitioners is binding and should render the property exempt from execution.
- How the waiver of parental rights expressed in the Compromise Agreement impacts liability for debts incurred by one spouse.
- Determination of Debt Benefiting the Conjugal Partnership
- Whether Michele’s judgment debt in the unlawful detainer case was incurred for the benefit of the conjugal partnership or was a personal obligation.
- Whether the execution of the property for the debt respects the principle that “one man’s goods shall not be sold for another man’s debts.”
- Authority and Limits in the Execution Process
- Whether the RTC and the sheriff acted within their legal authority in levying and selling a property partially or wholly not owned by the judgment debtor.
- The implications of the inscription on the title regarding the nullification of marriage and the subsequent transfer by donation to the petitioners.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)