G.R. No. 246255 , February 03, 2021
Teresita Cordova and Jean Ong Cordova, Petitioners, vs. Edward Ty, Respondent.

FACTS

The case arose from a writ of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to satisfy the civil aspect of its Decision finding Chi Tim Cordova (husband of petitioner Teresita and father of petitioner Jean) and another jointly and solidarily liable for amounts representing the value of bounced checks and attorney’s fees in a Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 case. Petitioners sought to exclude two properties from execution: (1) a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 77973 registered in the name of Teresita O. Cordova, claimed as her paraphernal property; and (2) a condominium unit covered by CCT No. 4441 registered in the name of Cordova Chi Tim, claimed as the family home. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted petitioners’ application for a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary prohibitory injunction, and rendered a Decision permanently restraining the sale, finding the liability corporate and the properties exempt. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, reinstated the writ of execution, and held the properties were conjugal and not exempt. Petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the subject properties may be executed to satisfy the civil liability of Chi Tim Cordova arising from the B.P. 22 case.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the RTC Decision. The Court ruled:
1. The subject properties belong to the conjugal partnership of gains of spouses Chi Tim and Teresita Cordova, as they were acquired during the marriage and petitioners failed to present strong, clear, and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of conjugality under Article 160 of the Civil Code/Article 116 of the Family Code.
2. However, the conjugal partnership properties cannot be held liable for the personal obligation of Chi Tim arising from the B.P. 22 case. Under Article 121 of the Family Code, payment of personal debts contracted by a spouse during marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. The civil liability for violation of B.P. 22 is a personal debt of the drawer, and in this case, it was a corporate obligation of Wood Technology Corporation for which Chi Tim was held solidarily liable. The MeTC Decision did not contain any finding that the debt redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership or the family. The debt was incurred for the corporation’s benefit, not the family’s. Therefore, the conjugal partnership assets, including the subject properties, are not liable for its satisfaction.