ELENITA M.

DEWARA, v SPOUSES RONNIE AND GINA

LAMELA and STENILE ALVERO
Petitioner: Elenita M. Dewara
Respondent: Spouses Ronnie and Gina Lamela and Stenile
Alvero
FACTS
-Eduardo Dewara and Elenita Dewara married before the FC
took effect, separated in fact because Elenita worked in
California, Eduardo in Bacolod
-1985 Eduardo, while driving jeep, hit Lamela, who filed
and won a case of serious physical injuries against Eduardo
-Court ordered Eduardo to pay 62k as civil indemnity and
10k as moral damages
-Eduardo could not pay so the sheriff levied a parcel of land
registered under Elenitas name, which was bought by
Lamela at a public auction
-Elenitas attorney-in-fact Ferdinand Magallanes claimed that
land was paraphernal property of Elenita and could not be
used to pay for personal liabilities of her husband
-Respondents claim that property was conjugal as it was
bought using Eduardos money, Elenita being a simple
housewife at the time of purchase of the land
-RTC declared property as paraphernal and ruled in favor of
the petitioner, tracing the ownership of the property to

Elenitas grandfather, Exequiel Magallanes, and was sold to

her by her father and her aunt for a much lower price,
indicating that it was a donation to Elenita alone
-CA reversed the decision, claiming that Eduardo and Elenita
acquired the property during their marriage
ISSUES
Whether or not the property is conjugal
RULING
Property is not conjugal, CA decision affirmed
-Registration under the name of one spouse alone does not
prove that property is not conjugal
-Separation-in-fact without judicial approval, does not affect
conjugal nature of property
-Elenita was unable to show that property was sold to her as
a donation, as she failed to show evidence that her payment
was much less than the value of the property
-Gross disparity in price does not affect the contract of sale,
may merely signify a defect in consent
-Despite conjugal nature, property may not necessarily be
used to pay for the liabilities of one spouse said spouse
must first be shown to have no property of his own, only in
such a case can the conjugal property be used