PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,

vs.
JOSE GARCIA and CHILDREN NORA GARCIA, JOSE GARCIA, JR., BOBBY GARCIA and JIMMY GARCIA and
HEIRS OF ROGELIO GARCIA NAMELY: CELEDONIO GARCIA, DANILO GARCIA, ELSA GARCIA, FERMIN
GARCIA, HEHERSON GARCIA, GREGORIO GARCIA, IMELDA GARCIA and JANE GARCIA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 182839 June 2, 2014

FACTS

• The subject of the present case is a parcel of residential land with all its improvements (subject
property) located in Barrio Olango, Mallig, Isabela.

• The land is covered under the name of Jose Garcia Sr. (Jose Sr.) who acquired the subject
property during his marriage with Ligaya Garcia. Ligaya died on January 21, 1987.

• The marriage of Jose Sr. and Ligaya produced the following children: Nora, Jose Jr., Bobby and
Jimmy, all surnamed Garcia, who are the respondents in the present case.

• Jose Sr., without the knowledge and consent of his children executed SPAs authorizing spouses
Garcia to convey a property to secure a loan from PNB by way of mortgage and an Amendment
of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of PNB which were inscribed in the title.

• The respondents filed a Complaint for Nullity of the said Amendment against spouses Garcia and
PNB alleging that the property was conjugal, being acquired during the marriage of Jose Sr. to
Ligaya and they became owners pro indivisio upon the death of Ligaya on 1987.

ISSUE

Whether the subject property was a conjugal or was acquired during marriage or thereafter.

HELD

• Yes. Article 119 applies

• The Subject Property is Conjugal

• All property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal. Since Jose Sr. and Ligaya were
married prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, their property relations were governed by
the conjugal partnership of gains as provided under Article 119 of the Civil Code. Under Article
160 of the Civil Code, "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it can be proven that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife."

• In his testimony, Jose Sr. admitted that at the time he acquired the land through sale, he was
already married.
ELENITA M. DEWARA,
represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, FERDINAND MAGALLANES,
Petitioner,
- versus -
SPOUSES RONNIE AND GINA LAMELA and STENILE ALVERO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 179010 April 11, 2011

FACTS

• Eduardo Dewara and Elenita Magallanes were married before the enactment of the family code.

• Husband and wife was separated-in-fact because Elenita went to work in California, US, while
Eduardo stayed in Bacolod.

• Eduardo, while driving a private jeep registered in the name of Elenita, hit respondent Ronnie
Lamela. Ronnie filed a criminal case for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.

• The writ of execution on the civil liability was served on Eduardo, but it was returned unsatisfied
because he had no property in his name.

• Ronnie requested the City Sheriff to levy on Lot of the Bacolod Cadastre in the name of ELENITA
M. DEWARA, of legal age, Filipino, married to Eduardo Dewara, and resident of Bacolod City, to
satisfy the judgment on the civil liability of Eduardo.

• Elenita, represented by her attorney-in-fact, filed a case for annulment of sale and for damages
against respondent spouses and ex-officio sheriff before the RTC of Bacolod City.

• Petitioner claimed that the levy on execution of the Bacolod Lot was illegal because the said
property was her paraphernal or exclusive property and could not be made to answer for the
personal liability of her husband.

• The RTC declared that said property was paraphernal in nature.

• The RTC gave credence to the testimony of Elenita on the sale of the property. First, it was sold
to her by her father and her aunt so that the family would remain on the lot. Second, the
minimal and inadequate consideration for the property was for the purpose of helping her
expand her capital in her business at the time. Thus, the sale was essentially a donation and was
therefore gratuitous in character.

• The CA ruled that Elenita and Eduardo acquired the property by onerous title during their
marriage through their common fund. Thus, it belonged to the conjugal partnership of gains and
might be levied upon to answer for civil liabilities adjudged against Eduardo.

ISSUE

Whether the subject property is the paraphernal/exclusive property of Elenita or the conjugal
property of spouses Elenita and Eduardo.
HELD

• All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Registration in the name of the
husband or the wife alone does not destroy this presumption.

• There is no dispute that the subject property was acquired by spouses Elenita and Eduardo
during their marriage. It is also undisputed that their marital relations are governed by the
conjugal partnership of gains, since they were married before the enactment of the Family Code
and they did not execute any prenuptial agreement as to their property relations.

• It is just and proper that Ronnie be compensated for the serious physical injuries he suffered.
Even though the vehicle that hit Ronnie was registered in the name of Elenita, she was not made
a party in the said criminal case. Thus, she may not be compelled to answer for Eduardos
liability.

• Their conjugal partnership property may be held accountable, however, since Eduardo has no
property in his name.

Article 161 of the Civil Code enumerates the obligations which the conjugal partnership may be
held answerable, viz.:

• Art. 161. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:

(1) All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership, and those contracted by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases where
she may legally bind the partnership;

• Art. 163. The payment of debts contracted by the husband or the wife before the marriage shall
not be charged to the conjugal partnership.

Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the
partnership.

However, the payment of debts contracted by the husband or the wife before the marriage, and
that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them, may be enforced against the partnership
assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Article 161 have been covered, if the spouse who
is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the
liquidation of the partnership such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the
purposes above-mentioned.
Henry Teng v. Lawrence, Edmund, and Anthony ting

G.r. no. 184237, September 21, 2016

FACTS

• Teng Ching Lay died Intestate in 1989, leaving as heirs, her child from her first marriage, Arsenio
Ting and from the second marriage, petitioner Henry Teng and Anna Teng.

• Arsenio married Germana Chua and bore three sons, respondents Lawrence, Edmund, and
Anthony Ting.

• Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and

Butuan City approved the project of partition
which included a residential property in Malate,
Manila.

• Subject property became a dispute in Ah Pao v. Ting, in which petitioner claimed said property is
owned by Teng Ching Lay and Arsenio was merely entrusted to it.

• Eventually, the SC ruled that Arsenio owned the subject property.

• Petitioner filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of Teng Ching Lay with the RTC of
Manila which Petitioner was appointed as administrator of the estate.

• Petitioner submitted the Estate’s Inventory and its statements of income and expenses including
the Malate properties and properties described as other properties entrusted to Arsenio Ting.

• Respondents filed their Motion for Exclusion of Properties owned by Arsenio Ting and Heirs.
These properties include the Malate Properties.

• Petitioner opposed the exclusion arguing that Arsenio was only entrusted to such properties for
Teng Ching Lay since the latter was an alien who cannot own lands in the Philippines.

• Respondents claimed that properties of Arsenio were acquired by them through inheritance
from their father, Arsenio, whose estate was judicially settled.

• RTC granted the Motion for Exclusion to which the properties had already been subject of a
judicial partition in the intestate proceedings.

• Petitioner filed for motion for reconsideration which was then partially granted to which the
Malate properties and other properties entrusted to Arsenio Ting are still excluded in the estate.

• The CA affirmed the RTC’s exclusion. The CA pointed out in the case of Ah Pao, the Court ruled
that the Malate property belonged to the estate of Arsenio.

ISSUE

Whether/not, the entrusted property should be excluded from the inventory administered by
petitioner.

RULING
• The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA.

• Legitime is defined as that part of the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because
the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs. Petitioner
asserts that Teng Ching Lay was the owner of the properties and Arsenio was only a trustee to it.

• The court then points out to the importance of inclusion/exclusion proceedings. The court may
provisionally pass upon a question without prejudice to its final determination.

• Lastly, exclusion of properties from the inventory of Teng Ching Lay’s estate is correctly ordered
by the Trial Court since said issue had already become covered by the Principle of Res Judicata.