GR 49013; (October, 1943) (Digest)
G.R. No. 49013; October 1, 1943
BRIGIDA PAZ, petitioner, vs. MODESTO CASTILLO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, SIXTO INANDAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 3661 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Sixto Inandan and others sued Juan Mendoza, Eduardo Mendoza, and Platon Amada for the partition of two parcels of land. Judgment was rendered on March 24, 1941, decreeing the partition. The court overruled the defense of defendant Eduardo Mendoza, who claimed exclusive ownership of the second parcel by virtue of an onerous donation from his deceased mother, Juana Inandan, evidenced by a private document (Exhibit 2). The court declared that no such donation had been made and that Exhibit 2 was of doubtful authenticity. On April 21, 1941, Brigida Paz, the wife of Eduardo Mendoza, filed a petition (amended on October 13, 1941) to set aside the judgment, alleging that the second parcel belonged exclusively to her and her husband by virtue of the same onerous donation executed on July 20, 1925. Her petition was denied, and the project of partition was approved. Brigida Paz refused to comply with the writ of execution and subsequent court orders, claiming she was not bound by the judgment as she was not a party defendant. To annul the writ and prevent her arrest for contempt, she filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, without disclosing that she is the wife of defendant Eduardo Mendoza and pretending to be a total stranger to the action.
ISSUE
Whether Brigida Paz, as the wife of defendant Eduardo Mendoza, is bound by the judgment in the partition case and subject to the writ of execution and contempt orders.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court found Brigida Paz’s pretensions baseless and her conduct contumacious. She relies on the same private instrument of supposed onerous donation (Exhibit 2) that her husband relied upon and which the trial court had already rejected. The interest she claims in the land is conjugal, not paraphernal, under the Civil Code. Therefore, she is bound by the judgment rendered against her husband, who by law is the manager with power to dispose of conjugal properties. The writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved. No costs are awarded as the petitioner is litigating as a pauper.