[G.R. NO.

177667 : September 17, 2008]

CLEODIA U. FRANCISCO AND CEAMANTHA U. FRANCISCO, REPRESENTED BY

THEIR GRANDMOTHER DRA. MAIDA G. URIARTE AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT,Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JORGE C. GONZALES AND PURIFICACION W.
GONZALES,Respondents.

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 30, 2007, which affirmed the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Orders dated June 4, 2003 and July 31, 2003, denying
petitioners' motion to stop execution sale.

Petitioners Cleodia U. Francisco and Ceamantha U. Francisco are the minor children of
Cleodualdo M. Francisco (Cleodualdo) and Michele Uriarte Francisco (Michele). In a
Partial Decision dated November 29, 2000 rendered by the RTC of Makati, Branch 144,
in Civil Case No. 93-2289 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, the Compromise
Agreement entered into by the estranged couple was approved. The Compromise
Agreement contained in part the following provisions:

7. In their desire to manifest their genuine concern for their children,

Cleodia and Ceamantha, Cleodualdo and Michelle have voluntarily
agreed to herein set forth their obligations, rights and responsibilities
on matters relating to their children's support, custody, visitation, as
well as to the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains as
follows:

(a) Title and ownership of the conjugal property consisting of a

house and lot located in Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila
shall be transferred by way of a deed of donation to Cleodia and
Ceamantha, as co-owners, when they reach nineteen (19) and
eighteen (18) years old, respectively, subject to the following
conditions:

x x x1

The property subject of the Compromise Agreement is a house and lot covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167907 in the name of Cleodualdo M. Francisco,
married to Michele U. Francisco, with an area of 414 square meters, and located in
410 Taal St., Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City.2

Meanwhile, in a case for Unlawful Detainer with Preliminary Attachment filed by

spouses Jorge C. Gonzales and Purificacion W. Gonzales (respondents) against George
Zoltan Matrai (Matrai) and Michele, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Muntinlupa
City, Branch 80, rendered a Decision dated May 10, 2001, ordering Matrai and Michele
to vacate the premises leased to them located in 264 Lanka Drive, Ayala Alabang
Village, Muntinlupa City, and to pay back rentals, unpaid telephone bills and attorney's
fees.3

Pending appeal with the RTC of Muntinlupa, Branch 256, an order was issued granting
respondents' prayer for the execution of the MeTC Decision.4 A notice of sale by
execution was then issued by the sheriff covering the real property under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-167907 in the name of Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married to
Michele U. Francisco.5

When petitioners' grandmother learned of the scheduled auction, she, as guardian-in-

fact of petitioners, filed with the RTC an Affidavit of Third Party Claim6 and a Very
Urgent Motion to Stop Sale by Execution7 but this was denied in the Order dated June
4, 2003.8Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied per RTC Order dated July
31, 2003.9

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.

Pending resolution by the CA, the RTC issued an Order dated July 8, 2005, granting
respondents' petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title.10 The RTC also
issued an Order on February 13, 2006, granting respondents' motion for the issuance
of a writ of possession.11

On April 30, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

The Order(s), dated June 4, 2003 and July 31, 2003, of the Regional Trial
Court of Muntinlupa City, Br. 256, in Civil Case No. 01-201, STAND. Costs
against the Petitioners.

SO ORDERED.12

Hence, herein petition. As prayed for, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
on July 11, 2007, enjoining respondents, the RTC, the Register of Deeds, and the
Sheriff from implementing or enforcing the RTC Order dated July 8, 2005, canceling
TCT No. 167907 and Order dated February 13, 2006, issuing a writ of possession, until
further orders from the Court.13

Petitioners argue that: (1) they are the rightful owners of the property as the Partial
Decision issued by the RTC of Makati in Civil Case No. 93-2289 had already become
final; (2) their parents already waived in their favor their rights over the property; (3)
the adjudged obligation of Michele in the ejectment case did not redound to the
benefit of the family; (4) Michele's obligation is a joint obligation between her and
Matrai, not joint and solidary.14

The Court finds that it was grave error for the RTC to proceed with the execution, levy
and sale of the subject property. The power of the court in executing judgments
extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor
alone, 15 in the present case to those belonging to Michele and Matrai. One man's
goods shall not be sold for another man's debts.16

To begin with, the RTC should not have ignored that TCT No. 167907 is in the name of
"Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married to Michele U. Francisco." On its face, the title shows
that the registered owner of the property is not Matrai and Michele but Cleodualdo,
married to Michele. This describes the civil status of Cleodualdo at the time the
property was acquired.17

Records show that Cleodualdo and Michele were married on June 12, 1986, prior to
the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. As such, their property relations
are governed by the Civil Code on conjugal partnership of gains.

The CA acknowledged that ownership of the subject property is conjugal in

nature;18however, it ruled that since Michele's obligation was not proven to be a
personal debt, it must be inferred that it is conjugal and redounded to the benefit of
the family, and hence, the property may be held answerable for it.19

The Court does not agree.

A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she purchases things necessary
for the support of the family, or when she borrows money for that purpose upon her
husband's failure to deliver the needed sum; when administration of the conjugal
partnership is transferred to the wife by the courts or by the husband; or when the
wife gives moderate donations for charity. Failure to establish any of these
circumstances means that the conjugal asset may not be bound to answer for the
wife's personal obligation.20 Considering that the foregoing circumstances are
evidently not present in this case as the liability incurred by Michele arose from a
judgment rendered in an unlawful detainer case against her and her partner Matrai.

Furthermore, even prior to the issuance of the Notice of Levy on Execution on

November 28, 2001,21 there was already annotated on the title the following
inscription:

Entry No. 23341-42/T-167907 - Nullification of Marriage

By order of the Court RTC, NCR, Branch 144, Makati City dated July 4, 2001,
which become final and executory on October 18, 2001 declaring the
Marriage Contract between Michelle Uriarte and Cleodualdo M. Francisco, Jr.
is null & void ab initio and title of ownership of the conjugal property
consisting of the above-described property shall be transferred by way of a
Deed of Donation to Cleodia Michaela U. Francisco and Ceamantha Maica U.
Francisco, as co-owners when they reach nineteen (19) and eighteen (18)
yrs. old to the condition that Cleodualdo, shall retain usufructuary rights
over the property until he reaches the age of 65 yrs. Old.

Date of instrument - Oct 18, 2001

Date of inscription - Oct 22, 2001.22

This annotation should have put the RTC and the sheriff on guard, and they should not
have proceeded with the execution of the judgment debt of Michele and Matrai.

While the trial court has the competence to identify and to secure properties and
interest therein held by the judgment debtor for the satisfaction of a money judgment
rendered against him, such exercise of its authority is premised on one important fact:
that the properties levied upon, or sought to be levied upon, are
properties unquestionably owned by the judgment debtor and are not exempt by
law from execution.23 Also, a sheriff is not authorized to attach or levy on property
not belonging to the judgment debtor, and even incurs liability if he wrongfully levies
upon the property of a third person. A sheriff has no authority to attach the property
of any person under execution except that of the judgment debtor.24

It should be noted that the judgment debt for which the subject property was being
made to answer was incurred by Michele and her partner,25 Matrai. Respondents
allege that the lease of the property in Lanka Drive redounded to the benefit of the
family.26 By no stretch of one's imagination can it be concluded that said
debt/obligation was incurred for the benefit of the conjugal partnership or that some
advantage accrued to the welfare of the family. In BA Finance Corporation v. Court of
Appeals,27 the Court ruled that the petitioner cannot enforce the obligation contracted
by Augusto Yulo against his conjugal properties with respondent Lily Yulo because it
was not established that the obligation contracted by the husband redounded to the
benefit of the conjugal partnership under Article 161 of the Civil Code. The Court
stated:

In the present case, the obligation which the petitioner is seeking to enforce
against the conjugal property managed by the private respondent Lily Yulo
was undoubtedly contracted by Augusto Yulo for his own benefit because at
the time he incurred the obligation he had already abandoned his family and
had left their conjugal home. Worse, he made it appear that he was duly
authorized by his wife in behalf of A & L Industries, to procure such loan
from the petitioner. Clearly, to make A & L Industries liable now for the said
loan would be unjust and contrary to the express provision of the Civil Code.
(Emphasis supplied)

Similarly in this case, Michele, who was then already living separately from
Cleodualdo,28rented the house in Lanka Drive for her and Matrai's own benefit. In
fact, when they entered into the lease agreement, Michele and Matrai purported
themselves to be husband and wife.29 Respondents' bare allegation that petitioners
lived with Michele on the leased property is not sufficient to support the conclusion
that the judgment debt against Michele and Matrai in the ejectment suit redounded to
the benefit of the family of Michele and Cleodualdo and petitioners. Thus,
in Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank v. Dailo, the Court stated thus:

x x x Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (he who asserts, not he
who denies, must prove). Petitioner's sweeping conclusion that the loan
obtained by the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr. to finance the construction of
housing units without a doubt redounded to the benefit of his family, without
adducing adequate proof, does not persuade this Court. Other than
petitioner's bare allegation, there is nothing from the records of the case to
compel a finding that, indeed, the loan obtained by the late Marcelino Dailo,
Jr. redounded to the benefit of the family. Consequently, the conjugal
partnership cannot be held liable for the payment of the principal
obligation.30

To hold the property in Taal St. liable for the obligations of Michele and Matrai would
be going against the spirit and avowed objective of the Civil Code to give the utmost
concern for the solidarity and well-being of the family as a unit.31

In justifying the levy against the property, the RTC went over the Compromise
Agreement as embodied in the Partial Decision dated November 29, 2000. Oddly, the
RTC ruled that there was no effective transfer of ownership to the siblings Cleodia and
Ceamantha Francisco. In the same breath, the RTC astonishingly ruled that Michele is
now the owner of the property inasmuch as Cleodualdo already waived his rights over
the property. The Compromise Agreement must not be read piece-meal but in its
entirety. It is provided therein, thus:

7. In their desire to manifest their genuine concern for their children,

Cleodia and Ceamantha, Cleodualdo and Michelle have voluntarily
agreed to herein set forth their obligations, rights and responsibilities
 on matters relating to their children's support, custody, visitation, as
well as to the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains as
follows:

(a) Title and ownership of the conjugal property consisting

of a house and lot located in Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa,
Metro Manila shall be transferred by way of a deed of
donation to Cleodia and Ceamantha, as co-owners, when
they reach nineteen (19) and eighteen (18) years old,
respectively, subject to the following conditions:

a.1. Cleodualdo shall retain usufructuary rights over the property

until he reaches the age of 65 years old, with the following rights
and responsibilities:

x x x x32 (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing, it is clear that both Michele and Cleodualdo have waived their title
to and ownership of the house and lot in Taal St. in favor of petitioners. The property
should not have been levied and sold at execution sale, for lack of legal basis.

Verily, the CA committed an error in sustaining the RTC Orders dated June 4, 2003
and July 31, 2003.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated
April 30, 2007, affirming RTC Orders dated June 4, 2003 and July 31, 2003, are
hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by the
Court per Resolution of July 11, 2007 is hereby made PERMANENT.

Costs against respondents.

SO ORDERED.