Exclusive property

The issue of whether a property is conjugal or the separate property of a spouse usually arises in case of actions brought against the spouses during their marriage.

Such is the case of Fred and Lucy, husband and wife. Fred and Lucy were residing in a house built on the land registered in the name of Lucy covered by TCT No. 1982 located at their hometown in the North. During their marriage, Fred and Lucy incurred certain obligations which they were not able to pay. As a consequence, a suit was filed by their creditor, Larry, for the recovery of the indebtedness amounting to P30,000. During the pendency of the case, Fred died. Nevertheless after trial, the lower court rendered judgment sentencing Fred and Lucy to pay Larry the total sum of P30,000.

The judgment was thereafter executed by levying on the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1982 registered in the name of Lucy. Lucy resisted the said execution by alleging that the property levied upon was her paraphernal property and that since her husband has already died, her liability is only of the amount awarded. Larry countered that the entire judgment debt can be satisfied from said property in view of the presumption that it is conjugal in character. Besides, Larry argued, even if the land levied upon was originally paraphernal, it became conjugal by virtue of the construction of a house at the expense of the common fund pursuant to Article 158(2) of the Civil Code. Is Larry correct?

No. The presumption that the property is conjugal refers to property acquired during the marriage. 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 indication that the property belongs exclusively to said spouse.

The construction of a house at conjugal expense on the exclusive property of a spouse does not automatically make it conjugal. It is true that, in the meantime, the conjugal partnership may use both the land and building, but it does so not as owner but as usufructuary. The ownership of the land remains with the spouse to whom it is registered until the value thereof is paid. This payment can only be demanded from the liquidation of the partnership. In this case, the partnership had not yet been liquidated.

Since the decision does not specify the liability of defendants, their liability is merely joint and none of them may be compelled to satisfy the judgment in full. So Lucy’s liability shall only be of the judgment debt for which her exclusive paraphernal property may answer unless she voluntarily pays the said portion of the judgment (Maramba vs. Lorenzo 20 SCRA 474).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]