Cobb-Perez and Perez v. Lantin (1968)

COBB-PEREZ and PEREZ v. LANTIN

GR No. L-22320

May 22, 1968

Ponente: Justice Castro

FACTS:

On Feb. 25, 1959, Ricardo P. Hermoso (private respondent) commenced a civil case against Damaso Perez (petitioner) for the recovery of the principal sum of P17,309 representing unpaid purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturing business of the said petitioner. The lower court ordered Perez to pay Hermoso the said amount with interest jointly and severally. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Perez then elevated the case to the Supreme Court which was denied for lack of merit and remanded to the court of origin which granted the corresponding writ of execution. On August 23, 1961, the Sheriff levied upon shares in the name of Perez with the Republic Bank and was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Perez, which was opposed by the latter who alleged that the levy on the said shares was highly excessive and the amount of the said property was more than that of the debt. The respondent judge Lantin denied Perez’s instant motion to stay the execution and the Sheriff served a second notice of sale, which was cancelled by the Court of Appeals which issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondent Judge and Sheriff. The Court of Appeals then rendered a judgment sustaining Perez’s position and the case was remanded for a second time to the court of origin. A third notice of sale was set by the Sheriff, however, two days before the schedule sale on execution, Mercedes Cobb-Perez (Damaso’s wife), filed a complaint for injunction alleging that the levied shares are conjugal assets and are not answerable for the judgment debt of Damaso Perez, given that the obligation contracted was not for the benefit of their conjugal partnership. On October 19, 1963, the respondent judge denied the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the levied shares are considered conjugal property and should not be made answerable for the payment of the judgment debt.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

- NO. The spouses Perez were unable to prove that the shares in question are conjugal assets. Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that unless it be proven otherwise, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. However, the law and jurisprudence provide that the party invoking this presumption must first prove that the property in question was acquired during the marriage. In this case, since there is no evidence as to when the shares were acquired, the fact that they are registered in the name of the husband alone is an indication that the shares belong exclusively to said spouse, as was held in a similar case of Maramba v. Lozano. Damaso Perez, in a case brought to the Court of Appeals, practically asserted exclusive ownership of the levied shares and is thus precluded from asserting that the said shares are conjugal assets. If the shares in question were indeed conjugal assets, they must still prove that the same is not liable for the payment of the judgment debt, which they were also unable to do.

JUDGMENT:

- Petition is DISMISSED and the writ of preliminary injunction is hereby dissolved.