Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Sps Abrenica Vs Law Firm of Abrenica

    Uploaded by

    Janela Lana
    This case involves a dispute between partners in a law firm. Erlando Abrenica was a partner who was later sued by the other partners for failing to return partnership funds. Joena, Erlando's wife, claimed that some of the property subject to execution was exempt or belonged to her and Erlando's stepchildren. The Court of Appeals dismissed Joena's claims, finding that she did not sufficiently pursue her third party claim and that the property was not part of her and Erlando's absolute community property based on provisions of the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Joena's right to due process was not violated as she did not adequately pursue her own claims and the disputed property belonged to Erlando's

    Copyright:

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

    Sps Abrenica Vs Law Firm of Abrenica

    Uploaded by

    Janela Lana
    43 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between partners in a law firm. Erlando Abrenica was a partner who was later sued by the other partners for failing to return partnership funds. Joena, Erlando's wife, claimed that some of the property subject to execution was exempt or belonged to her and Erlando's stepchildren. The Court of Appeals dismissed Joena's claims, finding that she did not sufficiently pursue her third party claim and that the property was not part of her and Erlando's absolute community property based on provisions of the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Joena's right to due process was not violated as she did not adequately pursue her own claims and the disputed property belonged to Erlando's

    Original Title

    3. Sps Abrenica vs Law Firm of Abrenica

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between partners in a law firm. Erlando Abrenica was a partner who was later sued by the other partners for failing to return partnership funds. Joena, Erlando's wife, claimed that some of the property subject to execution was exempt or belonged to her and Erlando's stepchildren. The Court of Appeals dismissed Joena's claims, finding that she did not sufficiently pursue her third party claim and that the property was not part of her and Erlando's absolute community property based on provisions of the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Joena's right to due process was not violated as she did not adequately pursue her own claims and the disputed property belonged to Erlando's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    Sps Abrenica Vs Law Firm of Abrenica

    Uploaded by

    Janela Lana
    This case involves a dispute between partners in a law firm. Erlando Abrenica was a partner who was later sued by the other partners for failing to return partnership funds. Joena, Erlando's wife, claimed that some of the property subject to execution was exempt or belonged to her and Erlando's stepchildren. The Court of Appeals dismissed Joena's claims, finding that she did not sufficiently pursue her third party claim and that the property was not part of her and Erlando's absolute community property based on provisions of the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Joena's right to due process was not violated as she did not adequately pursue her own claims and the disputed property belonged to Erlando's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    180572               June 18, 2012

    SPOUSES ATTY. ERLANDO A. ABRENICA and JOENA B. ABRENICA Petitioners, vs. LAW FIRM OF
    ABRENICA, TUNGOL and TIBAYAN, ATTYS. ABELARDO M. TIBAYAN and DANILO N.
    TUNGOL, Respondents.

    Facts:

    Petitioner Atty. Erlando A. Abrenica was a partner of individual respondents, Attys. Danilo N. Tungol and
    Abelardo M. Tibayan, in the Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan ("the firm").

    Respondents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) two cases against petitioner. The
    first was where they alleged that petitioner refused to return partnership funds representing profits from
    the sale of a parcel of land in Lemery, Batangas. The second was where respondents sought to recover
    from petitioner retainer fees that he received from two clients of the firm and the balance of the cash
    advance that he obtained in 1997.

    The SEC initially heard the cases but they were later transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
    City.

    respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution.

    petitioners Erlando and Joena subsequently filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Annulment
    of Judgment. the CA issued a Resolution6 dismissing the Petition

    Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Annulment of Judgment but the CA dismissed the Petition.

    Petitioners filed a 105-page Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA. This time, they injected the
    ground of extrinsic fraud into what appeared to be substantially the same issues. The CA dismissed the
    Petition.

    Subsequently, petitioners filed a Humble Motion for Reconsideration. petitioner Erlando filed an Urgent
    Omnibus Motion.

    On the same day, Joena filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim alleging that she 15 and her
    stepchildren16 owned a number of the personal properties sought to be levied. She also insisted that she
    owned half of the two (2) motor vehicles as well as the house and lot which formed part of the absolute
    community of property. She likewise alleged that the real property, being a family home, and the furniture
    and the utensils necessary for housekeeping having a depreciated combined value of one hundred
    thousand pesos (₱ 100,000) were exempt from execution.

    They assert that petitioner Joena’s right to due process was also violated when she was not made a
    party-in-interest to the proceedings in the lower courts, even if her half of the absolute community of
    property was included in the execution of the judgment rendered by Branch 226 of the RTC of Quezon
    City.

    Issue:

    Whether Joena’s right to due proves was violated.

    Held:

    It must be recalled that after she filed her Affidavit of Third Party Claim on 13 September 2007 and
    petitioner Erlando filed his Urgent Omnibus Motion raising the same issues contained in that third-party
    claim, he subsequently filed two Motions withdrawing his Urgent Omnibus Motion. Petitioner Joena,
    meanwhile, no longer pursued her third-party claim or any other remedy available to her. Her failure to act
    gives this Court the impression that she was no longer interested in her case. Thus, it was through her
    own fault that she was not able to ventilate her claim.

    Furthermore, it appears from the records that petitioner Erlando was first married to a certain Ma. Aline
    Lovejoy Padua on 13 October 1983. They had three children

    After the dissolution of the first marriage of Erlando, he and Joena got married on 28 May 1998. 31 In her
    Affidavit, Joena alleged that she represented her stepchildren; that the levied personal properties – in
    particular, a piano with a chair, computer equipment and a computer table – were owned by the latter. We
    note that two of these stepchildren were already of legal age when Joena filed her Affidavit. As to Patrik
    Randel, parental authority over him belongs to his parents. Absent any special power of attorney
    authorizing Joena to represent Erlando’s children, her claim cannot be sustained.

    Petitioner Joena also asserted that the two (2) motor vehicles purchased, as well as the house and lot
    formed part of the absolute community regime. However, Art. 92, par. (3) of the Family Code excludes
    from the community property the property acquired before the marriage of a spouse who has legitimate
    descendants by a former marriage; and the fruits and the income, if any, of that property. Neither these
    two vehicles nor the house and lot belong to the second marriage.

    You might also like