G.R. No. 179010; April 11, 2011
ELENITA M. DEWARA, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, FERDINAND MAGALLANES, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RONNIE AND GINA LAMELA and STENILE ALVERO, Respondents.

FACTS

Eduardo Dewara and petitioner Elenita Dewara were married under the Civil Code. They were separated-in-fact, with Elenita working in California and Eduardo residing in Bacolod City. On January 20, 1985, Eduardo, while driving a jeep registered in Elenita’s name, hit respondent Ronnie Lamela. Ronnie filed a criminal case for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Eduardo. The MTCC found Eduardo guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay civil indemnity (₱62,598.70 as actual damages and ₱10,000 as moral damages). The RTC affirmed the decision, which became final and executory.
A writ of execution on Eduardo’s civil liability was returned unsatisfied as he had no property in his name. Ronnie then requested the City Sheriff, respondent Stenile Alvero, to levy on Lot No. 234-C, covered by TCT No. T-80054 in the name of “ELENITA M. DEWARA, married to Eduardo Dewara.” The sheriff levied on the property, sold it at public auction (with Ronnie as the only bidder), and issued a certificate of sale to spouses Ronnie and Gina Lamela. Ronnie subsequently caused the consolidation of title, leading to the cancellation of Elenita’s TCT and the issuance of a new one in the spouses’ name. These actions occurred while Elenita was abroad.
Elenita, represented by her attorney-in-fact, filed a case for annulment of sale and damages against respondent spouses and the sheriff. She claimed the levied property was her paraphernal/exclusive property and could not answer for her husband’s personal liability, and that she received no notice of the execution sale. Respondent spouses countered that the lot was conjugal property, acquired by Elenita during marriage with Eduardo’s money, as Elenita was a housewife at the time of acquisition.
The RTC ruled in favor of Elenita, declaring the levy, auction, and consolidation null and void. It found the property was paraphernal, tracing its acquisition: Elenita’s grandfather originally owned it; upon his death, his children Jesus (Elenita’s father), Salud, and Concepcion inherited it; Salud waived her share to Jesus and Concepcion; Jesus and Concepcion then sold their respective shares to Elenita via deeds of sale in 1975 for ₱5,000 and ₱10,000. The RTC accepted Elenita’s testimony that the sales were essentially gratuitous donations to help her business and keep the family on the lot, thus making the property her exclusive property.
The CA reversed the RTC, dismissing Elenita’s complaint. It held that gross inadequacy of price alone does not invalidate a sale absent proof of vitiated consent, and found no evidence of such defect. It ruled the property was acquired by onerous title during marriage through the spouses’ common fund, making it conjugal property subject to levy for Eduardo’s civil liability.

ISSUE

Whether the subject property is the paraphernal/exclusive property of Elenita or the conjugal property of spouses Elenita and Eduardo. This determines if the property may be levied upon and sold to satisfy the final judgment for civil liability against Eduardo.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the subject property is the conjugal property of spouses Elenita and Eduardo. Therefore, it may be levied upon and sold to answer for the civil liability adjudged against Eduardo.
The Court applied Article 160 of the Civil Code, which establishes that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it is proved to pertain exclusively to the husband or wife. This presumption applies even when the property is registered in the name of one spouse alone and persists despite a separation-in-fact without judicial approval. The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies with the party claiming exclusive ownership.
The Court found that Elenita failed to overcome the presumption of conjugality. The property was acquired during the marriage through onerous title (deeds of sale). While Elenita presented the deeds showing purchase from her father and aunt, she did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the purchase money came exclusively from her own funds, separate from conjugal funds. The fact that she was a housewife at the time of acquisition further weakened her claim of exclusive financial capability. The gross inadequacy of the purchase price, by itself, does not convert a sale into a donation or prove the property is exclusive, absent evidence of the parties’ true intent being a donation. The Court upheld the CA’s finding that there was no proof of vitiated consent in the sales contracts.
Consequently, the property, being conjugal, was liable for the personal debt and civil obligation of the husband, Eduardo, arising from his criminal act. The levy and execution sale were valid. The petition was denied, and the CA decision was affirmed.