Atty. Erlando ABRENICA vs.

LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA

GR No. 180572 – JUNE 18, 2012
Sereno

SUBJECT: What is excluded from ACP

FACTS:
Petitioner was a partner of individual respondents, Attys Tungol and Tibayan, in the Law
Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan.

In May 6, 1998, respondents filed with the SEC 2 cases against petitioner. Both were for
Accounting and Return and Transfer of Partnership Funds. In the 1 st, they alleged that
petitioner refused to return partnership funds representing profits from the sale of a parcel
of land. In the 2nd, that petitioner refused to return retainer fees that he received from 2
clients of the firm and the balance of the cash advance that he obtained in 1997.

The cases were transferred to the RTC, which ruled in favor of respondents. This decision
became final and executory. The petitioner then filed a petition for annulment of judgment
before the CA for two consecutive times, alleging that the sheriff had levied properties
belonging to his co-petitioner (his wife Joena) and subsequently, Joena filed a 3 rd party
claim alleging that personal properties belonging to her stepchildren were also subject to
levy which were part of the ACP. The Appellate Court dismissed the petitions consecutively
on the ground of procedural errors.

Petitioners then elevated the case to the SC arguing that there is till a pending issue that
has not been resolved by the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the disputed properties are part of the community property, thus, exempted
from being levied.

HELD: NO!
It appears that Erlando was first married to a certain Ma. Aline Lovejoy Padua on 13 Oct.
1983. They had 3 children. After the dissolution of his first marriage, he and Joena got
married on 28 May 1998.

In her affidavit, Joena alleged that she represented her stepchildren and that the levied
properties – in particular a piano with a chair, computer equipment and a computer table –
were owner by the her stepchildren. Joena also asserted that the 2 motor vehicles
purchased in 1992 and 1997, as well as a house and lot formed part of the absolute
community regime.

However, Art. 92 (3) of the FC excludes from the community property the property
acquired before the marriage of a spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former
marriage; and the fruits and the income, if any, of that property. Neither these 2 vehicles
nor the house and lot belong to the 2nd marriage.
Also, it must be noted that 2 of these stepchildren were already of legal age. Also, the
parental authority of other minor stepchildren belongs to his parents. Hence, there is an
absence of any SPA authorizing Joena to represent Erlando’s children.