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 Summary (G.R. No. 179010)

Background of the Case

Elenita and Eduardo Dewara were married prior to the enactment of the Family Code, making the Civil Code applicable to their marital property relations. The couple experienced separation when Elenita relocated to California for work while Eduardo remained in Bacolod City. Eduardo was involved in an accident on January 20, 1985, leading to a criminal case for serious physical injuries filed by Ronnie Lamela, who was struck by a jeep registered under Elenita's name. The Municipal Trial Court found Eduardo guilty, ordering him to pay civil damages.

Execution and Sale of Property

After the sentencing, a writ of execution was issued to collect damages, but it was returned unsatisfied as Eduardo had no property. The City Sheriff, Stenile Alvero, enacted a levy on Lot No. 234-C, owned by Elenita, to satisfy Eduardo's civil liabilities. The lot was sold through a public auction, with only Ronnie expressing interest. Following the auction, a certificate of sale was issued in favor of the Lamela spouses, leading to a court-ordered cancellation of Elenita's title.

Petitioner’s Claim

Elenita, through her legal representative, sought annulment of the sale and damages based on the grounds that Lot No. 234-C was her exclusive property, arguing that it could not be levied for Eduardo's personal debts. She further contended that she was not notified of the execution sale, thus denying her due process.

Respondents’ Argument

The respondents argued that the property in question was part of the conjugal partnership, contending it was acquired during the marriage with funds attributed to Eduardo. They claimed that Elenita did not contest the levy or sale, which implied acceptance of its status as conjugal property.

Regional Trial Court Ruling

The RTC ruled in favor of Elenita, declaring the property as paraphernal and not subject to the execution for Eduardo's personal liabilities. The court established that the property had been inherited and purchased by Elenita before her marriage, rendering it exclusive to her.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC's decision, contending the property was acquired during the marriage and thus became conjugal. It stated that the presumption of conjugal property prevails unless conclusively rebutted. The CA held that the inadequacies of the sale price did not affect the enforceability of the contract, failing to find convincing evidence of a donation.

Legal Issue for Resolution

The legal question at hand was whether Lot No. 234-C was Elenita's exclusive/paraphernal property or part of the conjugal partnership between Elenita and Eduardo, affecting potential liability for Eduardo’s civil obligations.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reasserted the presumption that all property acquired during marriage is conjugal unless strong evidence of exclusive ownership is provided. The Court emphasized that the separation-in-fact did not negate conjugal property status. As the couple did not enter into a prenuptial agreement and the property was acquired during their marriage, it

...continue reading

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