You are on page 1of 1

GOvsYAMANE

Petitioners:SpousesJOSEPHINEMENDOZAGO&HENRYGO
Respondent:LEONARDOYAMANE
FACTS:
LotinBaguioCityisregisteredinthenameofMurielYamane,wifeofLeonardoYamane.Atty.DeGuzmanwho
handledacaseforwifeandhersistersleviedthesaidpropertytosatisfythelienforattorneysfees.
TheRTCofBaguioCityheldthatthesubjectparceloflandwastheparaphernalpropertyofMurielYamaneandnotthe
conjugalpropertyofthespouses.LeonardoYamane,husbandfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwasdenied.The
casewasbroughttotheCourtofAppeals.
TheCourtofAppealsreversedthedecisionoftheRTC.Theappellatecourtcontendsthat,propertyacquiredduring
marriageispresumedtobeconjugal,unlesstheexclusivefundsofonespouseareshowntohavebeenusedforthe
purpose.
HusbandsnameappearedontheTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)andtheDeedofAbsoluteSale.Bothdocuments
indicatethatMurielwasmarriedtoLeonardoYamane.
ISSUE:
Whetherthenatureofthepropertyisconjugalorparaphernal
HELD:
Propertypurchasedbyspousesduringtheexistenceoftheirmarriageispresumedtobeconjugalinnature,unlessitbe
provedthatitpertainsexclusivelytothehusbandortothewife.(Article160)
Thenatureofaproperty,whetherconjugalorparaphernal,isdeterminedbylawandnotbythewillofoneofthespouses.
Themereregistrationofapropertyinthenameofonespousedoesnotdestroyitsconjugalnature.Conjugalproperty
cannotbeheldliableforthepersonalobligationcontractedbyonespouse,unlesssomeadvantageofbenefitisshownto
haveaccruedtotheconjugalpartnership.
TheCAcommittednoerrorindeclaringthattheparceloflandbelongedtotheconjugalpartnershipofSpousesMuriel
andLeonardoYamane.TheyacquireditfromEugenePucayonFebruary27,1967,orspecificallyduringthemarriage.We
thenfollowtherulethatproofoftheacquisitionofthesubjectpropertyduringamarriagesufficestorenderthestatutory
presumptionoperative.Itisclearenoughthatthepresentlydisputedpieceoflandpertainstotheconjugalpartnership.
The contract or transaction between Atty. De Guzman and the Pucay sisters appears to have been incurred for the
exclusiveinterestofthelatter.Murielwasactingprivatelyforherexclusiveinterestwhenshejoinedhertwosistersin
hiringtheservicesofAtty.DeGuzmantohandleacaseforthem.Accordingly,whateverexpenseswereincurredbyMuriel
inthelitigationforherandhersisters'privateandexclusiveinterests,areherexclusiveresponsibilityandcertainlycannot
bechargedagainstthecontestedconjugalproperty.Thispieceoflandmaynotbeusedtopayforherindebtedness,because
herobligationhasnotbeenshowntobeoneofthechargesagainsttheconjugalpartnership.
Thepowerofthecourtinexecutingjudgmentsextendsonlytopropertiesunquestionablybelongingtothejudgment
debtoralone.Inthiscase,therefore,thepropertybeingconjugalinnaturecannotbeleviedupon.PetitionisDENIED.