Francisco vs Master Iron Works Francisco vs. Master Iron Works Construction Corporation GR. No.

151967, February 16, !!5 FACTS: Josefina Castillo was 24 years old when she and Eduardo Francisco got married on January 1 !"# $he latter was then em%loyed as &ice 'resident in a 'rivate Cor%oration# Josefina ac(uired two %arcels of land where Imus )ank e*ecuted a deed of a+solute sale in favor of Josefina, married to Eduardo# -n affidavit of waiver was e*ecuted +y Eduardo where he declared that %rior to his marriage with Josefina, the latter %urchased the land with her own savings and that he waived whatever claims he had over the %ro%erty# When Josefina mortgaged the %ro%erty for a loan, Eduardo affi*ed his marital conformity to the deed# In 1 ., Eduardo who was then a /eneral Manager, +ought +ags of cement from defendant +ut failed to %ay the same# $he latter filed a com%laint for recovery and trial court rendered 0udgment against Eduardo# $he court then issued a writ of e*ecution and the sheriif issued a notice of levy on e*ecution over the alleged %ro%erty of Josefina for the recovery of the +alance of the amount due under the decision of the trial court# 'etitioner filed a third %arty claim over the 2 %arcels of land in which she claimed as her %ara%hernal %ro%erty# ISSUE: W12 the su+0ect %ro%erty is the con0ugal %ro%erty of Josefina and Eduardo# HELD: $he Court ruled that %etitioner failed to %rove that she ac(uired the %ro%erty with her %ersonal funds +efore her coha+itation with Eduardo and that she was the sole owner# $he 3eed of -+solute 4ale on record showed it was issued after her marriage# $heir case fall under -rticle 14! and since they got married +efore the Family Code, the %rovision, %ursuant to -rt 256, can +e a%%lied retroactively if it does not %re0udice vested rights# 'etitioner likewise failed that she had any vested right# Where the %arties are in a void marriage due to a legal im%ediment that invalidates such marriage, -rt 14! should +e a%%lied# In the a+sence of %roof that the wife7hus+and has actually contri+uted money, %ro%erty, or industry to the %ro%erties ac(uired during such union the %resum%tion of co8ownershi% will not arise# $he %etition was denied for lack of merit# $he decision of C- that the %ro%erty was con0ugal was affirmed#

Wong vs I-C Won" vs. I#C GR No. 7!!$ , #u"ust 19, 1991 FACTS: 9omario :enson married ;atrina on January 1 64# $hey had " children however, even during the early years of their marriage, the s%ouses had +een most of the time living se%arately# 3uring the marriage or on a+out January 1 <1, the hus+and +ought a %arcel of land in -ngeles from his father using the money +orrowed from an officemate# 4ometime in June 1 <2, ;atrina entered an agreement with -nita Chan where the latter consigned the former %ieces of 0ewelry valued at '"21,!".# 5# ;atrina failed to return the same within the 2. day %eriod thus -nita demanded %ayment of their value# ;atrina issued in 4e%tem+er 1 <2, check of '55,... which was dishonored due to lack of funds# $he s%ouses -nita Chan and 9icky Wong filed action for collection of the sum of money against ;atrina and her hus+and 9omarico# $he re%ly with counterclaim filed was only in +ehalf of ;atrina# $rial court ruled in favor of the Wongs then a writ of e*ecution was thereafter issued u%on the 4 lots in -ngeles City all in the name of 9omarico :enson married to ;atrina :enson# 2 of the lots were sold at %u+lic auction to Juanito 4antos and the other two with =eonardo Joson# - month +efore such redem%tion, 9omarico filed an action for annulment of the decision including the writ and levy of e*ecution# ISSUE: W12 de+t of the wife without the knowledge of the hus+and can +e satisfied through the con0ugal %ro%erty# HELD: $he s%ouses had in fact +een se%arated when the wife entered into the +usiness deal with -nita# $he hus+and had nothing to do with the +usiness transactions of ;atrina nor authori>ed her to enter into such# $he %ro%erties in -ngeles were ac(uired during the marriage with unclear %roof where the hus+and o+tained the money to re%ay the loan# :ence, it is %resumed to +elong in the con0ugal %artnershi% in the a+sence of %roof that they are e*clusive %ro%erty of the hus+and and even though they had +een living se%arately# - wife may +ind the con0ugal %artnershi% only when she %urchases things necessary for su%%ort of the family# $he writ of e*ecution cannot +e issued against 9omarico and the e*ecution of 0udgments e*tends only over %ro%erties +elonging to the 0udgment de+tor# $he con0ugal %ro%erties cannot answer for ;atrina?s o+ligations as she e*clusively incurred the latter without the consent of her hus+and nor they did redound to the +enefit of the family# $here was also no evidence su+mitted that the administration of the %artnershi% had +een transferred to ;atrina +y 9omarico +efore said o+ligations were incurred# In as much as the decision was void only in so far as 9omarico and the con0ugal %ro%erties concerned, 4%ouses Wong may still e*ecute the de+t against ;atrina, %ersonally and e*clusively#