JOSEFINA A. PRADO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. SHERIFF OLIVER N. LANDINGIN, SHERIFF IV OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGUIO CITY, AND ABELARDO A. GAPUZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Prado versus Landingin

The Case

This is the case of Prado versus Landingin. Josefina Prado, the wife of a judgment debtor, sued a sheriff and the winning plaintiff in a separate court to annul a levy, an auction sale, and a sheriff's certificate of sale over conjugal property. The question is whether a spouse who was never impleaded in the case against her husband may attack the execution in an independent action, or whether she must bring her grievance to the very court that issued the writ. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between the executing court's supervisory power and the remedy of a spouse who claims the conjugal property is being taken for a personal debt.

Procedural History

Abelardo Gapuz and his wife sued Rodolfo Prado, Josefina's husband, for recovery of possession and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. That court rendered judgment in favor of the Gapuz spouses, and Rodolfo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed. Rodolfo's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his petition for review to the Supreme Court was likewise denied, the denial becoming final and executory on March 30, 2007.

On motion of Abelardo, the Baguio court issued a writ of execution. Sheriff Oliver Landingin then levied on two parcels of land and caused the sale at public auction of the property covered by one certificate of title, situated in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, which is the conjugal property of Rodolfo and Josefina. Abelardo was the highest bidder, and a sheriff's certificate of sale was issued in his favor.

Josefina then filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the notice of levy, auction sale, and sheriff's certificate, with damages, before the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. That court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the execution was under the authority of the Baguio court, a co-equal court, and that Josefina's remedy was a motion in the original case. Josefina appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

The Gapuz spouses obtained a final judgment against Rodolfo Prado awarding them possession of a portion of a lot, rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. The judgment became final and executory in March 2007 after review was denied. Execution followed.

The sheriff levied on real property covered by two certificates of title, and the parcel in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, with an area of five thousand thirty five square meters, was set for public sale. At the auction held on December 19, 2007, Abelardo Gapuz, the judgment creditor himself, was the highest bidder at six hundred sixteen thousand eight hundred nine pesos, and a certificate of sale was issued to him.

Josefina, who was not impleaded in the Baguio case, insisted that the judgment debt was her husband's personal obligation and that the conjugal partnership could not be made to answer for it. She therefore asked the Urdaneta court to void the levy and the sale and to restore the property to her.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
• Whether or not a spouse who was not impleaded in the case against the judgment debtor may file a separate action to annul the execution levied upon conjugal property.
• Whether or not the conjugal partnership is bound by the judgment against the husband alone.

Applicable Provisions

Article 121 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for: (1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support; (2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other; (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have benefited; (4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property; (5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate property of either spouse; (6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional, vocational, or other activity for self-improvement; (7) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the family; (8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement; and (9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless. If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.

This provision is the basis for holding that the conjugal partnership is bound by the judgment against the husband where the obligation redounded to the benefit of the family.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the appeal. On the first issue, it held that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint, because during the execution stage the power to supervise, even correct, the proceedings is vested in the court which rendered the decision. Any irregularities in the execution must be litigated in the court that issued the writ, and the filing of a mere motion in the original case would have sufficed.

On the second issue, the Court held that Josefina is not a stranger to the case against her husband. Relying on its earlier ruling in Ching versus Court of Appeals, it explained that a spouse whose conjugal property is executed upon on account of the other spouse being the judgment obligor is not a stranger who may file a separate and independent action. A separate action is allowed only where what was executed upon was the paraphernal or exclusive property of a spouse who was not a party to the case.

On the third issue, the Court held that the conjugal partnership is liable under Article 121 of the Family Code, because the rentals awarded represented the use by Josefina's family of the Gapuz property, an obligation that benefited the conjugal partnership. The Court also rejected the argument that the action was one affecting title to real property, since the complaint really assailed the execution proceedings and any question of title was merely incidental.

Doctrine

A case in which execution has been issued is still pending, so all proceedings on execution are proceedings in the suit, and the court that rendered the decision has supervisory control over its execution, including the power to correct errors of its ministerial officers. A judgment obligor, or a spouse whose conjugal property is levied upon for the other spouse's judgment debt, must question the execution before the executing court, not in a separate action before a co-equal court. A spouse is not a stranger to the case against the judgment debtor where the property executed upon is conjugal, and the conjugal partnership is liable under Article 121 of the Family Code for obligations that redounded to the benefit of the family.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, sustaining the dismissal of Josefina Prado's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a spouse whose conjugal property is levied upon for the other spouse's judgment debt is not a stranger and must seek relief from the executing court, not through a separate action. Examiners use this case to test the executing court's supervisory power and the liability of the conjugal partnership under Article 121 of the Family Code.