GR 4585; (September, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. 4585
September 8, 1908
LEOCADIO JOAQUIN, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
LAMBERTO AVELLANA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
Leocadio Joaquin (plaintiff-appellant) levied an attachment on a leasehold interest and a house. Tan Tongco and Agustina Brillo were husband and wife for more than eight years. Agustina Brillo entered into a lease contract for the property and constructed a house thereon during their marriage. By virtue of Article 1407 of the Civil Code, both the lease and the house were presumptively the property of the conjugal partnership.
Lamberto Avellana (defendant-appellee) sought to overcome this presumption by presenting a building permit issued to Agustina Brillo and a notarial act where Agustina Brillo stated she built the house with her own money and intended to register it as her property, which was subsequently done. Leocadio Joaquin purchased the property at an execution sale on May 28, 1904.
Lamberto Avellana also claimed that the rights of Tan Tongco and his wife in the lease had ceased, presenting only his own testimony as evidence. Leocadio Joaquin sought a declaration of his rights, the filing of his certificate of sale, and the cancellation of a deed made by a receiver in favor of Lamberto Avellana.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the leasehold interest and the house were conjugal partnership property and thus liable for the husband’s debts.
2. Whether the rights of Tan Tongco and his wife in the lease of the property had ceased.
3. What relief Leocadio Joaquin was entitled to as the purchaser at an execution sale.
RULING:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Lamberto Avellana failed to overcome the presumption established by Article 1407 of the Civil Code. The building permit and Agustina Brillo’s out-of-court statement in a notarial act were deemed insufficient and incompetent evidence, respectively, to prove the house was built with her exclusive money. Thus, both the leasehold interest and the house were conjugal partnership property and liable for the debts of the husband under Article 1408 of the Civil Code.
2. The Court found that Lamberto Avellana’s testimony was insufficient to prove that the leasehold rights of Tan Tongco and his wife had ceased.
3. As a consequence, Leocadio Joaquin, by the sale under execution, acquired all the interests of Tan Tongco and his wife in the leasehold and the house, subject to redemption as provided by law. He is entitled to have his certificate of sale filed in the office of the registrar of deeds, as mandated by Section 463 of the Code of Procedure. However, the Court clarified that Leocadio Joaquin was not entitled to the cancellation of the deed made by the receiver in favor of Lamberto Avellana at that stage, as the property was still subject to a one-year redemption period, and there was no evidence that the redemption period had expired or that a sheriff’s final deed had been executed.
The judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Leocadio Joaquin, declaring his acquisition of the interests and his right to file the certificate of sale.