Case Summary (G.R. No. 164201)
Procedural History
• July 9, 1997 (RTC, Surigao City): Efren acquitted; Melecia convicted of murder; ordered civil indemnity (₱50,000 per heir), moral damages (₱50,000), and actual damages (₱150,000).
• May 24, 2001 (SC): Conviction affirmed as reclusion perpetua; civil indemnity and moral damages upheld; actual damages deleted, replaced by ₱15,000 temperate damages; ₱50,000 exemplary damages per victim; decision became final on October 1, 2001.
• March 12, 2002 (RTC): Issued writ of execution; levied real properties titled in both spouses’ names; denied motion to quash; motion for reconsideration likewise denied on March 6, 2003.
• January 29, 2004 (CA): Petition for certiorari dismissed; motion for reconsideration denied.
• December 10, 2012 (SC): Petition for review on certiorari granted in part; affirmed with modification.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution governs (decision post-1990).
• Civil Code (pre-1988 marriages): Conjugal partnership of gains as default regime (Art. 142).
• Family Code (1988):
– Article 256 (transitory provision) preserves vested rights under Civil Code.
– Article 105 extends Family Code provisions on conjugal partnership to existing partnerships without prejudice to vested rights.
– Article 121 enumerates liabilities chargeable to the conjugal partnership.
– Article 122 restricts charging fines and indemnities to conjugal assets until specified obligations under Art. 121 are satisfied.
Issue
Whether conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melecia Pana may be levied and executed to satisfy the civil indemnities imposed on Melecia for her criminal liability.
Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions with modification. Enforcement of the writ against conjugal assets is permissible only after the partnership has satisfied all obligations enumerated in Article 121 of the Family Code.
Rationale
- Property Regime Fixity
– Marriages entered before the Family Code’s effectivity are governed by the conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil Code, absent a prenuptial agreement (Art. 119, Civil Code).
– The Family Code’s transitory rule (Art. 256) does not retroactively convert these regimes into absolute community of property. - Vested Rights
– Conversion would impair spouses’ vested rights in their separate properties; no post-marriage modification absent stipulated exceptions (Art. 76, Family Code). - Liability of the Conjuga
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164201)
Facts and Background
- Petitioner Efren Pana, his wife Melecia Pana, and others were charged with murder in RTC Surigao City (Criminal Cases Nos. 4232 and 4233).
- On July 9, 1997, the RTC acquitted Efren for insufficiency of evidence but convicted Melecia and another, sentencing them to death and ordering them to pay each heir P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P150,000 actual damages.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court (May 24, 2001) affirmed convictions, modified penalty to reclusion perpetua, maintained civil indemnity and moral damages awards, deleted actual damages for lack of basis, granted P15,000 temperate damages per heir, and P50,000 exemplary damages per victim, solidarily payable.
- The judgment became final on October 1, 2001.
Execution Proceedings
- Heirs moved for execution; on March 12, 2002, the RTC issued a writ and levied real properties titled in Efren’s and Melecia’s names.
- Notices of levy and sale followed.
- On April 3, 2002, Efren and Melecia moved to quash execution, arguing the properties were conjugal assets not subject to levy for Melecia’s liability.
- The RTC denied the motion (September 16, 2002) and a reconsideration (March 6, 2003).
- Petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals was dismissed (January 29, 2004) for lack of grave abuse of discretion; motion for reconsideration was denied (May 14, 2004).
- Efren instituted the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melecia may be levied and executed u