G.R. No. L-63025 November 29, 1991
RAMON C. ONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FRANCISCO BOIX and ARSENIO CAMINO AS DEPUTY SHERIFF OF CAMARINES NORTE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon C. Ong sought to annul an auction sale of a parcel of land levied to satisfy a judgment debt. The debt was incurred by his wife, Teodora B. Ong, from a loan for her logging business. In Civil Case No. 33396, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment against the spouses Ong. After the judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued. The Deputy Sheriff levied upon a parcel of land declared under Tax Declaration No. 05378 in the sole name of Teodora B. Ong. The property was sold at public auction to respondent Francisco Boix as the highest bidder.
Ong filed a complaint to annul the sale, arguing that the property was conjugal and thus not liable for the wife’s personal debt, and that the auction sale was void due to defective publication of the notice. The trial court upheld the validity of the sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the property to be the wife’s paraphernal asset and the publication to be in accordance with law. Ong’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether the auction sale is null and void due to alleged defects in the publication of the notice; and (2) Whether the levied property, registered solely in the wife’s name, is conjugal property and thus exempt from execution for the wife’s personal obligation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the factual finding of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the notice of public auction was published in accordance with law, is binding. Factual findings of lower courts are generally conclusive and cannot be reviewed unless grave abuse of discretion is shown, which petitioner failed to demonstrate.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the property is paraphernal, not conjugal. Under Article 160 of the Civil Code, properties acquired during marriage are presumed conjugal, but this presumption is rebutted when the title is in the name of only one spouse. The tax declaration was solely in Teodora’s name, indicating her exclusive ownership. Furthermore, even assuming the property was conjugal, it could still be held liable. The wife engaged in business with the husband’s implied consent. Under applicable laws, obligations incurred by the wife in the course of her business may be charged against both her paraphernal properties and the conjugal partnership, as business profits accrue to the conjugal fund. The decision of the appellate court was thus in accordance with law and evidence.