G.R. No. 30020. March 23, 1929
ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, FRANCISCO PRATTS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MENZI & CO., INC., AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
OSTRAND, J.:
and 27318, were brought in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Case
No. 27315 was instituted by Menzi & Co., Inc., against the
partnership Hanna, Bejar & Co., Pratts & Co. and Francisco
Pratts, Elias Hanna, and Isidoro Bejar, the regular collective partners
of said partnership, for the recovery of the sum of P9,336.97, with
interest; case No. 27316 was brought by Antonio Brimo against the
partnership Pratts & Co. and its regular collective partners,
Francisco Pratts, Elias Hanna, and Isidoro Bejar, for the recovery of
P21,146.56, with interest; and case No. 27318 was instituted by
Talambiras Brothers against the partnership Hanna, Bejar & Co.,
together with Francisco. Pratts, Elias Hanna, and Isidoro Bejar, the
collective partners of said partnership, for the recovery of P9,848.62,
with interest.
The plaintiffs in all three of the cases sued out writs of
attachment against the properties of the defendants, and on December
12, 1924, the provincial sheriff of Rizal, by virtue of said writs of
attachment, levied upon all the right, title, and interest, and
participation of the defendant Francisco Pratts in and to the property
described in transfer certificate of title No. 6964 and all
improvements thereon and also on another piece of property belonging to
Pratts and described in transfer certificate of title No. 7044, with
all improvements thereof.
Upon trial of the three civil cases, judgments were rendered in
favor of the plaintiffs, and writs of execution were issued and placed
in the hands of the sheriff of Rizal Province and levied upon the
properties attached on December 12th.
In order to prevent the sale under execution of the property
described in transfer certificate No. 6964, Adela Romero, the wife of
Francisco Pratts, presented a third party claim alleging that she was
the exclusive owner of said property. The plaintiffs gave indemnity
bonds in the total sum of P80,000, and the sheriff proceeded with the
publication of the sale under the executions. Before the sale was
effected, Adela Romero, assisted by her husband, brought the present
actions, G. R. Nos. 30020-21-22, claiming that the property described
in transfer certificate of title No. 6964 was her paraphernal property
and praying that the attachments made be declared null and void; that
the executions levied on said property be avoided and that in each
case, the defendants be required to pay damages in the sum of P3,000.
The three cases were tried together before Judge Llorente, who, on
April 25, 1928, rendered a decision declaring that the property in
question was community property of the marriage of Francisco Pratts and
Adela Romero and ordering the dismissal of the three cases with the
costs against the plaintiff. From this decision the plaintiff appeals.
The evidence is conclusive that the property in question was
purchased by Francisco Pratts himself and paid for with money acquired
during his marriage to the plaintiff, but the transfer certificate of
title was made out in the name of “Adela Romero de Pratts casada con
Francisco Pratts,” and counsel for the plaintiff maintains that the
defendants cannot now go behind the certificate of title and charge the
property with the debts of the plaintiff’s husband. This contention
cannot be sustained. Section 70 of the Land Registration Act
sufficiently covers the situation and reads as follows:
‘Registered land, and ownership therein, shall in all respects be
subject to the same burdens and incidents attached by law to
unregistered land. Nothing contained in this Act shall in any way be
construed to relieve registered land or the owners thereof from any
rights incident to the relation of husband and wife, or from liability
to attachment on mesne process or levy on execution, or from liability
to any lien of any description established by law on land and the
buildings thereon, or the interest of the owner in such land or
buildings, or to change the laws of descent, or the rights of partition
between coparceners, joint tenants and other cotenants, or the right to
take the same by eminent domain, or to relieve such land from liability
to be appropriated in any lawful manner for the payment of debts, or to
change or affect in any other way any other rights or liabilities
created by law and applicable to unregistered land, except as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act or in the amendments hereof.”
It seems plain that after it has been established that the land has’
been acquired during the marriage with funds pertaining to the conjugal
partnership, it must be considered conjugal or community property of
the marriage, whether it is registered or not, and may be levied upon
for the payment of debts contracted by the husband during the marriage
(art. 1408, Civil Code).
Counsel also argues that community property cannot be levied upon
for debts of the husband until his individual property has been
exhausted. That is true in cases where the debt has been incurred prior
to the marriage, but that is not the case here.
The appealed judgment is in accordance with the facts and the law
and is hereby affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.