Case Digest: JOSEPHINE AND HENRY GO vs. LEONARDO YAMANE

G.R. NO. 160762; MAY 3 2006

JOSEPHINE AND HENRY GO vs. LEONARDO YAMANE

FACTS:

In the civil case “Florence Pucay De Gomez, Elsie Pucay Kiwas and Muriel Pucay Yamane v. Cypress Corporation”, Atty. Guillermo F. De Guzman was the counsel who handled the plaintiffs in the said case.

To satisfy the lien for attorney's fees, a parcel of land, registered in the name of Muriel Pucay Yamane (wife of Leonardo Yamane), was scheduled to be sold at public auction on August 11, 1981. Spouses Josephine and Henry Go, herein petitioners, were awarded the said land as the highest bidders in the auction. Respondent Leonardo Yamane filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of Sale to petitioners, invoking a third-party claim. Respondent contended that the land was a conjugal property and could not be held responsible for the personal obligations of Muriel and the two other Pucays. RTC ruled against respondent, reasoning that the subject parcel of land was the paraphernal property of the late Muriel Pucay Yamane -- spouse of respondent -- and was not their conjugal property.

The Court of Appeals ruled otherwise, saying that the property acquired during marriage is presumed to be conjugal unless the exclusive funds of one spouse are shown to have been used for the purpose.  The property was acquired by couple from a certain Eugene Pucay during their marriage and, therefore, was a conjugal property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the property in Muriel Pucay’s name was a conjugal property and should not be held responsible for the obligations of Muriel Pucay and her sisters.

HELD:

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decisions.

Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife."

"As a general rule, all property acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose name the same is registered, during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of gains, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.

As to the responsibility of the then established conjugal property, the contract or transaction between Atty. De Guzman and the Pucay sisters appear[s] to have been incurred for the exclusive interest of the latter. Muriel was acting privately for her exclusive interest when she joined her two sisters in hiring the services of Atty. De Guzman to handle a case for them. Accordingly, whatever expenses were incurred by Muriel in the litigation for her and her sisters' private and exclusive interests, are her exclusive responsibility and certainly cannot be charged against the contested conjugal property.

Categories: Article 160, case digest, conjugal partnership of gains, G.R. NO. 160762, JOSEPHINE AND HENRY GO vs. LEONARDO YAMANE, MAY 3 2006, New Civil Code