Go v. Yamane (2006)

Spouses Josephine Mendoza Go & Henry Go vs. Leonardo Yamane

GR No. 160762, May 3, 2006, 

Ponente: Panganiban, C.J.,

Facts

·       A 750 sq. parcel of lot in Baguio city was registered in the name of Muriel Pucay Yamane, wife of Leonardo Yamane (respondent). Atty. Guillermo De Guzman levied land registered under the name of Muriel Pucay Yamane to satisfy the lien of attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000. The same land was to be sold at a public auction scheduled on August 11, 1981. Four days before the aunction sale, Leonardo Yamane filed a Third-Party Claim to stop the public auction, claiming that the land to be auctioned falls under conjugal property, hence, cannot be used to pay the personal obligation of Muriel Pucay Yamane. The Sheriff proceeded with the auction and sold the land to spouses Go. Leonardo Yamane filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of auction sale with the Regional Trial Court (Baguio) on ground that the said land was a conjugal asset. The RTC ruled that the land registered with the name Muriel Pucay Yamane did not fall under a conjugal asset and, therefore, was a paraphernal property of the same. Leonardo Yamane filed a motion for Reconsideration but this was denied and he brought the matter to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals declared the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale and the Final Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale null and void. The court ruled that the property acquired during the marriage shall be presumed conjugal unless the exclusive funds of one spouse are shown to have been used for the purpose.

Issue

·       W/N the property levied is conjugal or paraphernal.

Held

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.

Ratio

The purchase of the property had been concluded in 1967 before the effectivity of the Family Code in 1988, which was then covered by the governing provisons of the New Civil Code.

·       Under the Article 160 of the new Civil Code, all properties attained during the marriage are presumed to be a conjugal asset unless it is proved that said property pertains exclusively to either the husband or wife.

·       The Court states that The presumption in favor of conjugality does not operate if the is no showing of when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. Likewise, such presumption may be rebutted only with strong, clear and categorial evidence.

·        In the case at bar, the burden to prove otherwise lies within the party stating that the property falls under conjugal property.

·       The Court of Appeals did not err in declaring the land to be a conjugal asset. The Deed of Absolute Sale of said property is in the sole name of Muriel Pucay Yamane does not mean that it is not conjugal property. The parcel of land concerned was purchased from Eugene Pucay during the marriage of Muriel Yamane and Leonardo Yamane.