Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 189 views

    Dewara Vs Alvero

    Uploaded by

    Rad Isnani
    Elenita Dewara claimed a lot levied to pay her husband Eduardo's civil liability from an accident was her exclusive property, not conjugal property subject to levy. The RTC agreed but the CA reversed, ruling it was acquired during marriage through common funds and thus conjugal. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, noting the presumption of conjugal property and Elenita did not prove it was a gift. It held the lot conjugal and subject to levy to pay Eduardo's liability once the responsibilities in Article 161 are covered, as laid out in Article 163.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dewara Vs Alvero

    Uploaded by

    Rad Isnani
    189 views1 page
    Elenita Dewara claimed a lot levied to pay her husband Eduardo's civil liability from an accident was her exclusive property, not conjugal property subject to levy. The RTC agreed but the CA reversed, ruling it was acquired during marriage through common funds and thus conjugal. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, noting the presumption of conjugal property and Elenita did not prove it was a gift. It held the lot conjugal and subject to levy to pay Eduardo's liability once the responsibilities in Article 161 are covered, as laid out in Article 163.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Dewara vs Alvero

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Elenita Dewara claimed a lot levied to pay her husband Eduardo's civil liability from an accident was her exclusive property, not conjugal property subject to levy. The RTC agreed but the CA reversed, ruling it was acquired during marriage through common funds and thus conjugal. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, noting the presumption of conjugal property and Elenita did not prove it was a gift. It held the lot conjugal and subject to levy to pay Eduardo's liability once the responsibilities in Article 161 are covered, as laid out in Article 163.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    189 views1 page

    Dewara Vs Alvero

    Uploaded by

    Rad Isnani
    Elenita Dewara claimed a lot levied to pay her husband Eduardo's civil liability from an accident was her exclusive property, not conjugal property subject to levy. The RTC agreed but the CA reversed, ruling it was acquired during marriage through common funds and thus conjugal. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, noting the presumption of conjugal property and Elenita did not prove it was a gift. It held the lot conjugal and subject to levy to pay Eduardo's liability once the responsibilities in Article 161 are covered, as laid out in Article 163.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ELENITA M. DEWARA vs.

    SPOUSES RONNIE AND GINA LAMELA and STENILE ALVERO



    DOCTRINES:
    1. There is a presumption of the conjugal nature of property and thus the burden of proof rests on the party asserting
    otherwise. (From Art 116 FC)
    2. If one of the spouses has no exclusive property incurs fines and indemnities, the responsibilities enumerated in Art 161
    of the CC must be first accomplished before fines and indemnities can be charged to the conjugal partnership. (From Art
    163 CC)

    FACTS:
    Eduardo and Elenita Dewara were married before the enactment of the FC. While driving, Ed incurred an accident on his
    own fault (hit a pedestrian, Lamela) Ed has no property in his name to pay for the civil indemnity he incurred. Lamela
    asked to levy a certain lot in the name of Elenita to pay for the indemnity. Petitioner claimed that the levy on execution of
    the lot was illegal because the said property was her paraphernal or exclusive property and could not be made to answer
    for the personal liability of her husband. Respondent spouses contend that the lot was conjugal property of the petitioners.
    The RTC gave credence to Elenitas account that it was sold to her by her father and aunt in order to help her build
    capital. RTC ruled that it was in essence, a gratuitous donation and therefore it was paraphernal property that could not
    be used to pay for Eduardos civil liability.
    The CA reversed the decision of the RTC, it ruled that Elenita and Eduardo acquired the property by onerous title during
    their marriage through their common fund. Thus, it belonged to the conjugal partnership of gains and might be levied upon
    to answer for civil liabilities adjudged against Eduardo. Hence this petition.

    ISSUE:
    The sole issue for resolution is whether the subject property is the paraphernal/exclusive property of Elenita or the
    conjugal property of spouses Elenita and Eduardo.
    (The answer to this question will define whether the property may be subject to levy and execution sale to answer for the
    civil liability adjudged against Eduardo in the criminal case for serious physical injuries, which judgment had already
    attained finality.)

    HELD:
    The lot retains its conjugal nature. The Court said that the lot was acquired during their marriage and that their marriage
    was governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. Elenita was not able to convince the Court that its selling price was so
    inadequate to consider it as a donation. There is a presumption of the conjugal nature of property and thus the burden of
    proof rests on the party asserting otherwise. The responsibilities enumerated in Art 161 of the CC must be first
    accomplished before Ronnie can be compensated, as provided by Art 163.

    Art. 161. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
    (1) All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, and those contracted
    by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases where she may legally bind the partnership;
    (2) Arrears or income due, during the marriage, from obligations which constitute a charge upon property of either spouse
    or of the partnership;
    (3) Minor repairs or for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate property of either the husband or
    the wife; major repairs shall not be charged to the partnership;
    (4) Major or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;
    (5) The maintenance of the family and the education of the children of both the husband and wife, and of legitimate
    children of one of the spouses;
    (6) Expenses to permit the spouses to complete a professional, vocational or other course.

    Art. 163. The payment of debts contracted by the husband or the wife before the marriage shall not be charged to the
    conjugal partnership.
    Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership.
    However, the payment of debts contracted by the husband or the wife before the marriage, and that of fines and
    indemnities imposed upon them, may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in
    Article 161 have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient;
    but at the time of the liquidation of the partnership such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the purposes
    above- mentioned.

    Art 116 FC
    All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in
    the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.

    You might also like