Plata vs.

Yatco
Facts:

In 1954 Amalia Plata purchased a parcel of land in Caloocan, Rizal, for which
the Provincial RD issued TCT No. 25855 in the name of Amalia Plata, single,
Filipino citizen.

On 13 Feb 1958, she sold the property to one Celso Saldaña who obtained
TCT No. 40459 therefor.

On 24 Sep 1958, after 7 mos, Saldaña resold the same property to Amalia
Plata, “married to Gaudencio Begosa," a new TCT No. 43520 was issued to
the vendee, Amalia Plata.

Also on 24 Sep 1958, "Amalia Plata, xxx married to Gaudencio Begosa," in

consideration of a loan of P3,000, mortgaged to Cesarea Villanueva, the
same property and its improvements "of which the mortgagor declares to be
hers as the absolute owner thereof." Begosa, signed as co-mortgagor.

The property was foreclosed, and sold in an auction sale to Villanueva, the
highest bidder. on 13 May 1961, the Sheriff issued a final deed of sale; the RD
issued the buyer TCT, No. 55949.

Subsequently, Villanueva sued Begosa alone for illegal detainer, and obtained
judgment against the latter, which became final and executory.

A writ of execution was duly issued, but Amalia Plata resisted all efforts to
eject her from the property, and she filed a third party claim, averring
ownership of the property. Upon motion, CFI cited both Plata and Begosa in
contempt.

Plata’s contention:
She is not bound by detainer judgment because she is not lawfully married to
Gaudencio Begosa, and that she had acquired the property while still single,
and was in possession thereof when the Sheriff attempted to enforce the writ
of ejectment. 
ISSUE:
W/N Amalia Plata is bound by the detainer judgment against Gaudencio
Begosa.
More specifically, W/N the subject property is a conjugal property of Plata
and Begosa.

RULING:
NO. The subject property is a paraphernal property of Amalia Plata and,
therefore, she cannot be bound by the detainer judgment against Begosa.

Since the property was paraphernal, and the creditors and purchasers were
aware of it, the fact being clearly spread on the land records, it is plain that
Plata's possession was not derived from Gaudencio Begosa. The illegal
detainer judgment against the husband alone cannot bind nor affect the
wife's possession of her paraphernal, which by law she holds and
administers independently, and which she may even encumber or alienate
without his knowledge or consent (Civ. Code, Arts. 136. 137, 140). Hence, as
she was not made party defendant in the eviction suit, the petitioner-wife
could validly ignore the judgment of eviction against her husband, and it was
no contempt of court for her to do so, because the writ of execution was not
lawful against her.

RATIO:
● SC presumed the validity of marriage between Plata and Begosa based

on the ff:
● the admissions of married status in public documents;
● the presumption that persons openly living together as husband and wife

are legally married to each other, and

● the prior marriage of Begosa to someone else does not necessarily

exclude the possibility of a valid subsequent marriage to Plata.

● The property was acquired by Plata while still single, as shown in the
TCT. The subsequent conveyance thereof to Celso Saldaña, and the
reconveyance of her several months afterward of the same property, did
not transform it from paraphernal to conjugal property, there being no
proof that the money paid to Saldaña came from common or conjugal
funds (Civ. Code, Art 153). The deed of mortgage in favor of respondents
Villanueva actually recites that the petitioner was the owner of the
tenement in question and so does the conveyance of it by Saldaña to her.
 ● Begosa’s signing as a co-mortgagor, by itself alone, would not suffice to
convert the land into conjugal property, considering that it was
paraphernal in origin. This is particularly the case where the addition of
Begosa as co-mortgagor was clearly an afterthought, the text of the
deed showing that Plata was the sole mortgagor.

Just some additional readings:

DOCTRINE:
Where a property was acquired by the woman while she was still single, the
subsequent conveyance thereof to a third person, and the reconveyance of
her several months afterward of the same property, did not transform it from
paraphernal to conjugal property, there being no proof that the money paid
to the vendor came from common or conjugal funds (Civ. Code, Art 153).

The illegal detainer judgment against the husband alone cannot bind nor
affect the wife's possession of her paraphernal, which by law she holds and
administers independently, and which she may even encumber or alienate
without his knowledge or consent.

Relevant Provision of Law:

NCC Art. 153 ; 136, 137, 140

Art. 153. The following are conjugal partnership property:

. That which is acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the
expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the
partnership, or for only one of the spouses;
. That which is obtained by the industry, or work, or as salary of the
spouses, or of either of them;
. The fruits, rents or interests received or due during the marriage, coming
from the common property or from the exclusive property of each
spouse. (1401)

Art. 136. The wife retains the ownership of the paraphernal property. (1382)

Art. 137. The wife shall have the administration of the paraphernal property,
unless she delivers the same to the husband by means of a public instrument
empowering him to administer it.
In this case, the public instrument shall be recorded in the Registry of
Property. As for the movables, the husband shall give adequate security.
(1384a)

Art. 140. A married woman of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or

otherwise dispose of her paraphernal property, without the permission of the
husband, and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (n)