Spouses Wong vs.

IAC

Facts:
-Romarico and Katrina are married to each other. They, however, had been most of the time living
separately.
-During their marriage, Romarico bought a parcel of land owned by his father with money borrowed
from his officemate.
-Meanwhile, in HK, Katrina entered into an agreement with Anita Chan whereby the latter consigned to
Katrina pieces of jewelry for sale valued at P321,830. When Katrina failed to return the pieces within the
20-day period agreed upon, Anita demanded payment of their value.
-On 09-18-72, Katrina issued a check which was dishonored for lack of funds. As a result, she was
charged with estafa. The case, however, was dismissed because Katrinas liability is not criminal but civil
in nature as no estafa was committed by the issuance of the check in payment of a pre-existing
obligation.
-Spouses Anita and Ricky then filed an action for collection of a sum of money against Spouses Katrina
and Romarico. The counsel, however, in the name of Albino only represented Katrina excluding
Romarico. During subsequent hearing, Atty. Yumul, who collaborated with Atty. Albino, appeared for
the defendants, but it is not shown on record that said counsel also represented Romarico.
-RTC: decision in favor of the Wongs, ordered spouses Katrina and Romarico to pay the value of the
jewelries with interest from 05-27-75 until fully paid, 20000 for litigation expenses, and 15000 as AF.
-A writ of execution was thereafter issued. Levied upon were lots in Angeles city all in the name of
Romarico married to Katrina.
-Public auction was held and the parcels of land were sold to Santos and Joson.
-A month before redemption, Romarico filed an action for the annulment of the decision, writ of
execution, levy on execution, and the auction sale alleging that he was not given his day in court since
he was not represented by a counsel, he was not declared in default by the court, he and his wife were
never personally served a copy of the decision, he had nothing to do with the business transactions of
Katrina as he did not authorize her to enter into such transactions, and that the properties levied on
execution and sold at public auction were his capital properties and all the proceedings had in the case
were null and void.
-the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the sheriff from approving the final bill of sale
and the register of deeds from registering said certificate of title in the names of Santos and Joson until
the final outcome of the case subject to Romaricos posting of a bond in the amount of 321,831.
-the court also ruled that there was no basis for holding the conjugal partnership liable for the personal
indebtedness of Katrina; it ruled in favor of reconveyance based on the rule that the interest of the wife
in the conjugal partnership property being inchoate, the same may not be sold or disposed of for value
until after the liquidation and settlement of the community assets.
-Defendants appealed to the then IAC which affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court.
1. the judgement was not yet final as the decision was not served on Romarico and he was not
represented by counsel ; as such, estoppel may not be applied against him for he did not know anything
about it; no valid writ of execution as the decision had not become final
2. the properties may not be levied upon as conjugal properties, Katrinas obligations were
exclusively hers because they were incurred without the consent of the husband, not for the daily
expenses of the family or not for the benefit of the family, no transfer of administration to Katrina either
by Romarico or by the court
Issues: Is Romarico guilty of laches and may not now belatedly assert his rights over the properties
because he and Katrina were represented by counsel in civil case?
Can the conjugal property be charged of Katrinas obligation?

Ruling:
No. Katrina and Romarico were separated in fact when the former entered into a business deal
with Anita. As such, Romarico failed to act with the belief that he was not involved in the personal
dealing of his estranged wife. He was only implicated in the complaint as the husband of Katrina. No
laches since he had no opportunity to defend himself. There was no final decision yet, the court had no
jurisdiction. The writ of execution cannot be issued against Romarico as he has not yet had his day in
court, public sale null and void. Also, the power of the court in the execution of judgments extends only
over properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor.
Having been acquired during the marriage, the properties are still presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership even though they had been living separately. The presumption of the conjugal
nature of the properties subsists in the absence of clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence to
overcome said presumption or to prove that the properties are exclusively owned by Romarico.
Proof on this matter is of paramount importance considering that in the determination of the
nature of a property acquired by a person during coverture, the controlling factor is the source of the
money utilized in the purchase. The petitioners have not shown that the obligation of Katrina is one that
can be charged against the conjugal partnership. Her rights being only inchoate and the absence of the
consent of her husband and her authority to incur the obligation had not been alleged in the complaint
and proven at the trial. The wife may bind only the conjugal partnership when she purchases things
necessary for the family, when administration is transferred to her, or when the wife gives moderate
donations for charity. Wongs were not able to establish any.
The civil decision is void only as far as Romarico and the CPP are concerned, the same may still
be executed by the Wongs against Katrina personally and exclusively.