G.R. No. L-20825 December 28, 1964
AMALIA PLATA, petitioner, vs. HON. NICASIO YATCO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V; BENITO MACROHON, Sheriff of Quezon City and The Spouses CESAREA E. VILLANUEVA and GREGORIO LEAÑO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amalia Plata purchased a parcel of land in Caloocan, Rizal, in 1954, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25855 was issued in her name as a single person. On February 13, 1958, she sold the property to Celso Saldaña, who obtained a new title. On September 24, 1958, Saldaña resold the same property to “Amalia Plata, married to Gaudencio Begosa,” and a new title (TCT No. 43520) was issued to her. On the same date, “Amalia Plata… married to Gaudencio Begosa” mortgaged the property to respondent spouses Cesarea Villanueva and Gregorio Leaño to secure a loan of P3,000. The mortgage deed, which stated the mortgagor was the absolute owner, was also signed by Gaudencio Begosa as co-mortgagor. Due to non-payment, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and the property was sold to the mortgagee respondents, who obtained a new title. Subsequently, respondent Villanueva sued Gaudencio Begosa alone for illegal detainer in Civil Case No. Q-6250, obtained a final judgment, and secured a writ of execution. Amalia Plata resisted ejectment, filing a third-party claim asserting ownership. Upon motion of the judgment creditors, the lower court cited both Begosa and Plata for contempt. After finding her explanation unsatisfactory, the court found Plata guilty of contempt for refusing to vacate, sentencing her to pay a fine with subsidiary imprisonment. Plata filed this petition for certiorari to annul the contempt order.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Amalia Plata is bound by the illegal detainer judgment rendered solely against Gaudencio Begosa in Civil Case No. Q-6250.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, annulled the contempt order, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court held that the property in question was the paraphernal property of Amalia Plata, having been unquestionably acquired by her while still single, as evidenced by TCT No. 25855. Its subsequent conveyance to Saldaña and reconveyance to her did not transform it into conjugal property, absent proof that the repurchase money came from conjugal funds. The deed of mortgage itself recited that Plata was the owner. As the property was paraphernal and this fact was evident from the land records, Plata’s possession was not derived from Gaudencio Begosa. Under the Civil Code, a wife holds and administers her paraphernal property independently and may even encumber or alienate it without her husband’s consent. Since Plata was not made a party defendant in the illegal detainer suit against her husband alone, the judgment of eviction could not bind or affect her possession of her paraphernal property. Therefore, it was no contempt of court for her to ignore the writ of execution, as it was not lawful against her. The Court did not rule on the validity of the property’s conveyance to the respondents, as that issue was the subject of a separate proceeding.