HERMOGENES MARAMBA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. NIEVES DE LOZANO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Maramba versus De Lozano

The Case

This is Hermogenes Maramba against Nieves de Lozano and her husband Pascual Lozano, a case that began as a simple action for the collection of a sum of money and ended as a lesson on the immutability of a final judgment. Maramba obtained a money judgment against the spouses. After the judgment became final, the trial court, on the widow's motion, reduced her liability to one half on the theory that the judgment was merely joint. The case matters because it gathers in one place three rules a reviewee must command: a final and executory decision cannot be amended except for clerical errors; a judgment that does not expressly make the defendants solidarily liable binds them only jointly; and the separate property of one spouse cannot be levied to answer the liability of the other.

Procedural History

Maramba sued the spouses in the Court of First Instance of Dagupan City. After trial, the court rendered judgment in his favor, sentencing both spouses to pay the sum of money claimed, with legal interest and costs. The spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed for their failure to file their brief on time. The record was remanded, execution issued, and a parcel of land titled in the wife's name was levied upon and sold at public auction to Maramba as the highest bidder.

The wife then moved to fix her liability at one half of the judgment debt, and the trial court granted the motion, holding her liability joint and modifying the writ of execution accordingly. Maramba appealed that order. The appeal was originally brought to the Court of Appeals but was certified to the Supreme Court because the issues raised are purely legal.

Facts

On November 3, 1948, Maramba filed an action against Nieves de Lozano and her husband Pascual Lozano for the collection of a sum of money. On June 23, 1959, the trial court rendered judgment sentencing both spouses to pay Maramba the total sum of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos and Seven Centavos, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, plus costs. The spouses appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on March 30, 1960 for failure to file their brief on time.

After remand, a writ of execution issued, and on August 18, 1960 a levy was made upon a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title in the name of Nieves de Lozano. The public auction was set for September 16, 1960. On that date the wife made a partial payment of Two Thousand Pesos and asked for an adjournment to October 26, 1960. On October 17, 1960 she filed an amended motion alleging that her husband had died on November 11, 1952, during the pendency of the case, that the levied property was her paraphernal property, and praying that her liability be fixed at one half of the judgment and that the sheriff be restrained from proceeding with the sale.

The sale nevertheless proceeded on October 26, 1960, and the property was sold to Maramba as the highest bidder for Four Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five Pesos and Twelve Centavos, the balance of the judgment debt. On June 28, 1961, the trial court issued the order now on appeal, holding that the wife's liability under the judgment is only joint, or One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos and Four Centavos, one half of the judgment debt, with legal interest, plus one half of the costs, and modifying the writ of execution accordingly.

Issues

• Whether or not the decision of June 23, 1959, which had already become final, could still be questioned or amended.
• Whether or not the judgment was joint or solidary.
• Whether or not the judgment debt could be satisfied from the proceeds of the property sold at public auction.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1137 of the Civil Code provides:

If the obligation is joint, each debtor is liable only for his proportionate part of the debt; but if it is solidary, each debtor is liable for the whole obligation.

This is the provision the Court invokes to hold that, absent an express order of solidarity, the defendants answer only for their proportionate shares.

Article 1138 of the Civil Code provides:

If the obligation is solidary, each debtor is bound to pay the whole obligation, and the creditor may demand payment from any one of them.

This is the provision the Court invokes to explain why the wife cannot be compelled to satisfy the judgment in full.

Article 160 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the provision the Court construes to refer only to property acquired during the marriage, so that the presumption does not save the appellant's contention.

Article 158, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides:

The conjugal partnership shall be liable for the construction of a house on the exclusive property of either spouse, but the ownership of the land shall remain with the spouse to whom it belongs until the value thereof is paid.

This is the provision the Court construes to hold that building a house at conjugal expense on the wife's exclusive land does not automatically convert the land into conjugal property.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the decision of June 23, 1959 could no longer be amended. It had long become final and was in fact partially executed. A final and executory decision can no longer be amended or corrected by the court except for clerical errors or mistakes, and however erroneous it may be, it cannot be disobeyed; otherwise litigations would be endless. The amendment sought, striking out the plural form and the husband's name, would touch the very substance of the controversy, not a mere clerical error. Nor could it be accomplished by a nunc pro tunc order, which is an order to make a present record of an order the court had previously made but which was not then recorded; here there was no prior order to record.

On the second issue, the Court held that the judgment was merely joint. The decision did not specify the extent of the liability of each defendant, and the rule is that when the judgment does not order the defendants to pay jointly and severally, their liability is merely joint, and none of them may be compelled to satisfy the judgment in full. This is in harmony with Articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code.

On the third issue, the Court held that the property levied upon, being the separate property of the wife, could not be made to answer for the liability of the other defendant. The presumption under Article 160 refers to property acquired during the marriage, and here there was no showing as to when the property was acquired, so the fact that the title stood in the wife's name alone was determinative. The appellant himself admitted that the property was paraphernal. As to the claim that the land became conjugal by the construction of a house at conjugal expense, the Court held that such construction does not automatically make the land conjugal; the conjugal partnership may use both land and building, but only in the exercise of the right of usufruct, and ownership of the land remains the same until its value is paid, which can only be demanded in the liquidation of the partnership. No liquidation had been shown.

Doctrine

A decision that has become final and executory can no longer be amended or corrected by the court except for clerical errors or mistakes, and however erroneous it may be, it cannot be disobeyed. A nunc pro tunc order merely records an order previously made but not then entered; it cannot supply an order never made.

When a judgment does not order the defendants to pay jointly and severally, their liability is merely joint, and none of them may be compelled to satisfy the judgment in full, in harmony with Articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code.

The presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code refers only to property acquired during the marriage; where there is no showing of the time of acquisition, the fact that the title is in the wife's name alone is determinative. The construction of a house at conjugal expense on the exclusive property of one spouse does not automatically make the land conjugal; the conjugal partnership merely holds a right of usufruct, and ownership remains with the spouse until the value is paid in the liquidation of the partnership.

Disposition

The order of the trial court was affirmed, with costs, and the petition of May 18, 1967, which alleged facts occurring after the perfection of the appeal, was left to the trial court for resolution in connection with the implementation of that order.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a final and executory judgment cannot be amended except for clerical errors, and that absent an express order of solidarity the liability of co-defendants is merely joint. Examiners like to use this case on the immutability of final judgments, on the joint versus solidary distinction under Articles 1137 and 1138, and on the paraphernal character of property titled in the wife's name alone.