128RAMONC.ONG,petitioner,vs.

COURTOFAPPEALS,
FRANCISCOBOIXandARSENIOCAMINOASDEPUTY
SHERIFFOFCAMARINESNORTE,respondents.
[G.R.No.L63025;November29,1991]
TOPIC:Conjugalpartnershipofgains>4.Administration
ofexclusiveproperty
(a)Bythespouseowner,FC110
(b)Bytheotherspouse,FC1102ndpar; FC142,75,227
PONENTE:PARAS,J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.

Thepetitionerswife,TeodoraB.OngconductedherownloggingbusinessinCamarinesSur.Infurtheranceofherbusiness
operation,onAugust18,1955,shesecuredfromFranciscoBoixaloanintheamountofP2,827.83.Unfortunately,becauseof
mismanagement,Teodoradefaultedinherobligation.ThispromptedBoixtofileacomplaint,basedonthepromissorynotes
executedbyTeodora,tocollectthesumlegallydueplusinterestagainstTeodoraandRamonOng,thelatterbeingjoinedas
husbandoftheformer.DefendantspousesweredeclaredindefaultandjudgmentwasrenderedinfavorofBoix.
2. RamonC.OngfiledacomplaintagainstdefendantsArsenioCaminoasDeputySheriffofCamarinesNorteandFranciscoBoix,to
annultheauctionsaleofaparcelofland,allegedlyownedconjugallybyplaintiffandhisformerwifeTeodoraB.Ong,awardedin
favorofBoix,ashighestbidder,inanauctionsalebytheDeputySheriffofCamarinesNorte,hereindefendantCamino,pursuant
toawritofexecutionissuedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilatoenforceitsdecisioninthecivilcaseagainstspousesOng.
3. Thetitletotheproperty,infavoroftheexecutioncreditorBoixwasdulyregisteredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsof
CamarinesNorte.
4. Thecorrespondingwritofexecutionwasissued.Accordingly,the Sheriffleviedandattachedtheparceloflanddeclared
underTaxNo.05378inthesolenameofTeodoraB.InanoticeoflevyonExecutiondatedAugust22,1958(Exhibit"2B"),
andnoticeofPublicAuctionsaledatedSeptember10,1958(Exhibit"2C"),auctionsaleswasheldonOctober10,1958andas
alreadymentioned, defendantBoixwasadjudgedhighestbidder. Awritofpossessionwasissuedtoplacetheexecution
creditorinpossessionofthepropertylevieduponandsoldonexecution.AcorrespondingCertificateofSalewasalsoissuedin
favorofBoix.
5. AhouseinthenameofbothspousesisbuiltinthesaidlandbutthesubjectofBioxsactiononlyinvolvesthelotdeclared
inMrs.Ongsname.
6. Consequently,petitionerbroughtthecasetotheCourtofAppealstoannultheauctionsaleallegedlyirregularlyexecuted
onthefollowinggrounds,namely,thatthepropertywasconjugalandthuscouldnotbeheldliableforpersonaldebts
contractedbythewife,andthatthetherewasnovalidpublicationthusmakingtheauctionsalevoid.
7. TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
8. Petitionerclaimsthatthesubjectpropertyisconjugalinviewofthefactthatitwas"declared,underTaxNo.05378,inthe
nameofTeodoraB.OngwhilethehouseerectedthereonwasdeclaredunderTaxNo.06022inthenameofRamonC.Ongand
TeodoraB.Ong.Petitionerstressesheavilyonthefactthatsincethesurname"Ong"(whichisthesurnameofthehusbandRamon
C.Ong)wascarriedbyTeodoraintheaforesaiddeclaration,thatindicatesthatthesubjectpropertywasacquiredduringthe
marriage.Byreasonthereof,thepropertyindisputeispresumedtobeownedjointlybybothspouses.
ISSUE(S): Whetherornotthesubjectpropertyisownedjointlybybothspouseshencecannotbeheldliableforpersonaldebts
contractedbythewife.
HELD:NO.
RATIO:
Themereuseofthesurnameofthehusbandinthetaxdeclarationofthesubjectpropertyisnotsufficientproofthatsaid
propertywasacquiredduringthemarriageandisthereforeconjugal. Itisundisputedthatthesubjectparcelwasdeclared
solelyinthewife'sname,butthehousebuiltthereonwasdeclaredinthenameofthespouses.Undersuchcircumstances,
coupledwithacarefulscrutinyoftherecordsofthepresentcase,Weholdthatthelotinquestionisparaphernal,andis
therefore,liableforthepersonaldebtsofthewife.
Thus,itwasheldinthecaseofMarambavs.Lozano,20SCRA474,that:
Thepresumptionthatpropertyisconjugal(Art.160,NewCivilCode)referstopropertyacquiredduringthemarriage.When
thereisnoshowingastowhenthepropertywasacquiredbyaspouse,thefactthatthetitleisinthespouse'snameisan

indicationthatthepropertybelongsexclusivelytosaidspouse.
Thepartywhoinvokesthepresumptionthatallpropertyofthemarriagebelongstotheconjugalpartnership(Art.160,NewCivil
Code)mustfirstprovethatthepropertywasacquiredduringthemarriage.Proofofacquisitionduringthemarriageisacondition sine
quanon fortheoperationofthepresumptioninfavoroftheconjugalpartnership.Inthesamemanner,therecentcaseof PNBvs.
CourtofAppeals,153SCRA435affirmsthat:
Whenthepropertyisregisteredinthenameoftheaspouseonlyandthereisnoshowingastowhenthepropertywasacquired
bysaidspouse,thisisanindicationthatthepropertybelongsexclusivelytosaidspouse.AndthispresumptionunderArt.160of
theCivilCodecannotprevailwhenthetitleisinthenameofonlyonespouseandtherightsofinnocentthirdpartiesareinvolved.
Furthermore,evenassumingforthesakeofargumentthatthepropertyindisputeisconjugal,thesamemaystillbeheldliable
forthedebtsofthewifeinthiscase.UnderArt.117oftheCivilCode,thewifemayengageinbusinessalthoughthehusband
mayobject(butsubjecttocertainconditions).Itisclearfromtherecordsthatthewifewasengagedintheloggingbusiness
withthehusband'sknowledgeandapparentlywithoutanyobjectiononhispart.Theactsofthehusbandshowthathegavehis
impliedconsenttothewife'sengagementinbusiness.AccordingtoJusticeAmeurfinaHerrera(thenAssociateJusticeoftheCourt
ofAppeals)inherconcurringopinion,therulethatshouldgoverninthatcaseisthat thewife'sparaphernalproperties,aswellas
thoseoftheirconjugalpartnership,shallbeliablefortheobligationsincurredbythewifeinthecourseofherbusiness (Arts.
117,140,172,203,and236,CivilCode;Art.10,CodeofCommerce,citedinCommentariesonPhil.CommercialLaws,Martin,T.C.
Vol.1,1970RevisedEdition,pp.1415).Afterall,whateverprofitsareearnedbythewifefromherbusinessgototheconjugal
partnership.Itwouldonlybejustandequitablethattheobligationscontractedbythewifeinconnectionwithherbusinessmayalso
bechargeablenotonlyagainstherparaphernalpropertybutalsoagainsttheconjugalpropertyofthespouses.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):