GR 174373; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174373; October 15, 2007
EMELINDA V. ABEDES, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RELIA QUIZON ARCIGA and SHERIFF RONBERTO B. VALINO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Relia Quizon Arciga secured a final and executory decision from the RTC of Pasig declaring Wilfredo Abedes, petitioner Emelinda’s husband, as the natural father of her child and ordering him to provide monthly support. To satisfy this judgment, the sheriff levied upon a property registered under TCT No. 292139, which was in the name of “Emelinda V. Abedes, married to Wilfredo P. Abedes.” Petitioner filed a third-party claim and subsequently a complaint for injunction before the RTC of Tarlac, asserting the property was her exclusive paraphernal asset and thus not liable for her husband’s personal support obligation. The RTC granted a preliminary injunction and later issued a summary judgment in favor of petitioner, declaring the property paraphernal and ordering the cancellation of the levy annotations.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the RTC, holding that the property was presumed conjugal under the Family Code, making it liable for the support obligation. The CA also ruled that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing a separate civil action for injunction instead of just a third-party claim under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
(1) Whether the property registered in the name of the wife is conjugal or paraphernal. (2) Whether the filing of a separate action for injunction was the proper remedy to assert ownership over levied property.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the property is the exclusive paraphernal property of petitioner Emelinda. The Court applied Article 160 of the Civil Code, which governs as the property was acquired during the marriage prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Under this provision, properties acquired during the marriage are presumed conjugal. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The Torrens title, which explicitly states the property is registered “in the name of Emelinda V. Abedes,” constitutes clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The Court distinguished this from cases where the title is in the name of both spouses.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that petitioner correctly filed a separate civil action for injunction. A third-party claim under Rule 39 is a summary remedy that does not conclusively settle ownership; it merely requires the judgment creditor to post an indemnity bond if the sheriff wishes to proceed with the levy. A separate action to resolve the issue of ownership is precisely the remedy contemplated by the Rules when a third party asserts a superior right over the levied property. The injunction was proper to prevent the auction of property to which the judgment debtor had no attachable interest. Therefore, the RTC of Tarlac validly acquired jurisdiction and correctly decided the case on its merits.