GO vs YAMANE (G.R. No.

160762)

Spouses JOSEPHINE MENDOZA GO & HENRY GO, Petitioners vs LEONARDO YAMANE, Respondent

CASE: A Petition for Review challenging CA’s Resolution of declaring the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale and
the Final Sheriffs Certificate of Sale, NULL and VOID.

FACTS:

1. A parcel of land located in Baguio City was registered in the name of Muriel Pucay Yamane, wife
of Leonardo Yamane. This subject property was levied to satisfy a lien for attorney’s fees in a
case for the Pucay sisters. The said property was scheduled to be sold at public auction.
2. Prior to the auction sale, Respondent Yamane filed a Third-Party Claim to stop the public auction
on the ground that the subject property is conjugal property and should not be held answerable
for the personal obligation of the Pucay sisters. However, the auction and sale proceeded
awarding herein Petitioners Spouses Go as the highest bidder. No redemption was made during
the one-year period which resulted to the final certificate of Sale transferring the said property
to the Petitioners.
3. Respondent filed a Complaint with the RTC of Baguio City for cancellation of auction sale.
RTC: Held that the subject parcel of land was the paraphernal property of the late Muriel Pucay
Yamane and was not their conjugal property. The appearance of the respondents name on the
TCT was deemed to be merely descriptive of the civil status of Muriel. Thus, Respondent had no
legal standing to question the auction sale or to pray for its annulment or cancellation.
CA: Reversed the RTC’s Decision. Stating that the certificate of sale was NULL and VOID. CA held
that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be conjugal, unless the exclusive funds of
one spouse are shown to have been used for the purpose. That the land was acquired during the
spouse’s marriage was sufficiently established by the TCT and the Deed of Absolute Sale, both
indicating that Muriel Pucay Yamane was married to the Respondent. Also, the Petitioners failed
to establish that the contested property was acquired by Muriel using her exclusive funds.

ISSUE: WON the subject property is conjugal or paraphernal.

RULING:

Yes, the subject property was conjugal.

1. The property was purchased before the Family Code took effect. Hence, the issue should be
resolved the governing provisions of the New Civil Code. Article 160 of the New Civil Code
provides that 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.
2. Respondents interest cannot be prejudiced by the claim of Muriel in her Complaint in Civil Case
that the subject parcel of land was her paraphernal property. Significantly, the nature of a
property -- whether conjugal or paraphernal -- is determined by law and not by the will of one of
 the spouses. Thus, no unilateral declaration by one spouse can change the character of a
conjugal property.
3. The ruling in Diancin vs CA: all the property acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose
name the same is registered, during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership of gains, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
4. The property may not be used to pay for her indebtedness because her obligation has not been
shown to be one of the charges against the conjugal partnership. Therefore, the property being
conjugal in nature cannot be levied upon.

The Petition is DENIED and CA’s Decision and Resolution was AFFIRMED.