Laperal v.

Katigbak 10 SCRA 493

Facts: Appeal from decision of CFI of Manila declaring property to be the paraphernal property of defendant-
appelle Evelina Kalwa. The appellants maintain that it should be considered as conjugal property Laperals
sought for recovery of money evidenced by promissory notes made by Katigbak and for the recovery of jewelry
that katigbak was supposed to sell. Nov 1, 1950 - TC ordered Katigbak to pay back the Laperals and return the
jewelry. Dec 1950 Katigbak and Evelina Kalaw filed for judicial separation of property and separate
administration which was granted. Feb 1, 1955 – Laperals filed complaint that the separation of property should
be annulled and should be deemed as conjugal property - C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS |
PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 93 - Dec 27, 1958: SC rendered judgment that while the conjugal property
should be used to pay the debt of Katigbak, the paraphernal property of Kalaw shouldn‘t. TC: rendered
judgment that Kalaw‘s property was indeed paraphenral.

ISSUE: WON property being contested is part of conjugal property

HELD: NO Art 160 of CC- properties acquired during marriage are deemed conjugal property unless it is
proven that it belongs exclusively to husband and wife Shown through: (1) title is in name of wife alone (2)
husband gave his marital consent to their being mortgaged by his wife (3) wife is financially able to buy
proeprty In this case, proved that mother of Evelina bought the contested property for her, it was under
Evelina‘s name, Ramon Katigbak issued a manifestation where he stated he had no interest in the property,
husband could not have afforded to buy it. RESULT: land is paraphernal and thus can‘t be subject to the debts
of Katigbak