Maramba v. Lozano (1967)

Maramba v. Lozano

GR No. L-21533

June 29, 1967

Ponente: Justice Makalintal

FACTS

On November 3, 1948, Hermogenes Maramba (petitioner) filed an action against Nieves de Lozano and her husband Pascual Lozano (defendants) for the collection of a sum of money. The Court of First Instance (Dagupan) rendered a decision sentencing the spouses Lozano to pay Maramba the total sum of P3,500.07 with legal interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case and remanded the case to the court of origin, which issued a writ of execution. On August 18, 1960 levy was made upon a parcel of land under the name of Nieves de Lozano and a notice of sale was scheduled on September 16, 1960. On the day of the sale, however, Nieves de Lozano made a partial satisfaction of the judgment on the amount of P2,000.00 and requested an adjournment of the sale. On October 17, 1960, Nieves de Lozano filed an amended motion alleging that her husband Pascual died during the pendency of the case on November 11, 1952, and thus the property levied upon her was paraphernal property. Nieves de Lozano prayed that her liability be fixed at ½ of the amount awarded in the judgment and to restrain the Sheriff from carrying out the sale. The sale proceeded, and the property of Nieves de Lozano was sold to the judgment creditor. The trial court, upon ruling on Nieves de Lozano’s opposition, granted her motion and held her liability only joint or P1,750.04 with legal interest and ordered the auction sale of her property to satisfy the said amount. Maramba contends that in any event the entire judgment debt can be satisfied from the proceeds of the property sold at public auction in the name of only one of the spouses.

ISSUE: Whether or not Maramba’s contention is correct.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

-       NO.  The presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code refers to property acquired during marriage. The property in question as acquired and hence the fact that the title is in the wife’s name alone is determinative. Appellant himself admits in his brief that the property is paraphernal.

-       When there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by a spouse,  the fact that the title is in the spouse’s name is an indiciation that the property belongs exclusively to that spouse.

-       It has been held by this Court that the construction of a house at conjugal expense and the ecxlusive property of one of the spouses does not automatically make it conjugal. It is true that in the meantime te conjugal partnership may use both the land and the building, but it does so not as owner but in the exercise of the right of usurfruct.

-       The property levied upon, being separate property of defendant Nieves de Lozano, cannot be made to answer for the liability of the other defendant.

JUDGMENT:

- Judgment of the Court of First Instance of Dagupan is AFFIRMED.