MAURA RAMOS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIA CASTELO, LORENZO LOPEZ AND MARIANO LOPEZ, AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF NATALIO LOPEZ, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The plaintiff claims that she is the owner of a certain piece or parcel of
land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. This action was brought to
recover the possession of the same as such owner. The lower court, after a
consideration of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, reached the
conclusion that the plaintiff was the sole and only owner of the parcel of land
in question and rendered a judgment in accordance with that conclusion. From
that judgment the defendants appealed to this court.

The appeal presents two questions: (1) Could the plaintiff, as a married
woman, maintain the present action without the intervention of her husband? and
(2) Does the proof show that she is the owner of said parcel of land?

To the complaint the defendants demurred upon the ground that the plaintiff
was without right to maintain the action without the intervention of her
husband. The plaintiff prayed that she be declared to be the owner of said
parcel of land and to be given possession thereof. Her claim of ownership was
based upon the fact that it was her sole and separate property; that it was her
paraphernal property. In her petition she made no claim for damages for the
illegal use and occupation by the defendants. The lower court, in considering
the demurrer, overruled it, thereby holding, following the decision of this
court in the case of Jacinto vs. Salvador (22 Phil. Rep., 376), that a
married woman may maintain an action to recover the possession of her sole and
separate property without the intervention of her husband when he has no
interest therein. In that case this court held that, by virtue of the provisions
of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the wife can now appear in court
alone and litigate with regard to her property in which her husband has no
interest. The same doctrine had been heretofore announced in the case of Quison
vs. Salud (12 Phil. Rep., 109). (See also Bismorte
vs. Aldecoa & Co., 17 Phil. Rep., 480.)

In view of the foregoing doctrine, we are of the opinion and so hold that no
error was committed in overruling the demurrer.

With reference to the second question presented by the appellants, it may be
said that the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the land in question by virtue
of having inherited the same from her mother Clemencia Buhay. The defendants
claim that they are the owners of the land in question by virtue of having
purchased the same at a sheriff’s sale.

With reference to the claim of the defendants it may be said that the proof
shows, that sometime prior to the commencement of the present action, the
husband of the plaintiff executed and delivered a mortgage upon a house located
upon the land in question; that her husband having failed to satisfy the debt
for the payment of which the said mortgage was given to secure, an action was
instituted upon said mortgage, and judgment was rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs in that action and against the husband of the plaintiff herein. An
execution was issued upon said judgment, and the house and other personal
property covered by said mortgage were sold at public auction by the sheriff,
including the parcel of land now claimed by the plaintiff. An examination of
said mortgage shows conclusively that it only covered the house and other
personal property be- longing to the husband of the plaintiff. The mortgage did
not cover the land now in question. The sale, therefore, of the land which was
not included in the mortgage must be considered null and void. The sale of the
land being null and void did not affect the title of the plaintiff thereto. The
plaintiff, therefore, being the sole and separate owner of said parcel of land
as her paraphernal property, is en- titled to recover the possession of the
same. While there is some proof to the contrary, we are of the opinion that a
large preponderance of evidence adduced during the trial of the cause supports
the conclusions of the lower court.

The judgment appealed from, therefore, is hereby affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ.,
concur.