Case Digest (G.R. No. 265651)
Facts:
TJ Lending Investors, Inc., represented by Ted Joseph B. Punzalan, v. Spouses Arthur Ylade and Lita Ylade and the Register of Deeds of Manila, G.R. No. 265651, July 31, 2024, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.The dispute began with a Collection Case (Civil Case No. 11-125134) filed by TJ Lending Investors, Inc. in Branch 173, Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 173), Manila, against several defendants including the Spouses Nenita Generosa‑Cubing and Egmedio Cubing (the principal debtors) and Lita Generosa‑Ylade (as co‑maker). RTC Branch 173 found the Spouses Cubing and Lita liable for PHP 940,190.94, plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and dismissed the case as to other named defendants including Arthur Ylade. That decision became final and executory.
To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied upon and sold a real property in Tondo, Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 170488 (the subject property), which on its face was registered in the name of Arthur C. Ylade, married to Lita Ylade. At the execution sale TJ Lending was the highest bidder; the property was not redeemed within the statutory one‑year redemption period, and RTC Branch 173 issued a Final Deed of Sale in favor of TJ Lending.
Arthur moved in RTC Branch 173 to nullify the levy and execution sale; the motion was denied on the ground that he had been declared in default in the Collection Case and had waived objections by failing to redeem. Thereafter, TJ Lending demanded surrender of the owner’s duplicate TCT No. 170488; when respondents refused, TJ Lending filed a Petition for Surrender of Title (Case No. P‑16‑0214) in RTC Branch 4, Manila, seeking turnover of the owner’s duplicate on the ground that the Final Deed of Sale had been issued to it.
RTC Branch 4 granted the Petition for Surrender of Title in a Decision dated August 20, 2018, reasoning that, because the marriage of the Spouses Ylade occurred on December 28, 1985 and TCT No. 170488 was issued on August 7, 1986, Article 160 of the Civil Code gave rise to a presumption that the property was conjugal and therefore subject to attachment for Lita’s debt. Arthur’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which docketed the appeal as CA‑G.R. CV No. 112633.
The CA, in a Decision dated July 5, 2022, reversed and set aside the RTC Branch 4 Decision and dismissed TJ Lending’s Petition for Surrender of Title for lack of merit. The CA held that the TCT’s notation that Arthur was “married to” Lita was merely descriptive of civil status and did not prove acquisition during marriage, and that even if the property were conjugal, TJ Lending had not shown the judgment debt redounded to the benefit of the family. TJ Lending’s motion for reconsideration be...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the subject property is the exclusive property of Arthur and thus could not be lawfully levied upon and sold in execution to satisfy the judgment debt ag...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)