PLATA vs.

YATCO
Note:
Nature of the Action: Amalia Plata resorts to this Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari against
the Court of FirstInstance of Rizal, Branch V, Quezon City, to annul and set aside its order of 4 January
1963, issued in its Civil CaseNo. Q-6250 (Cesarea Villanueva, et al. vs. Gaudencio Begosa) finding
petitioner Plata in contempt of court for refusingto vacate certain property.
Facts:

At petitioner's instance, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued to stay

enforcement of the order complained of, and respondents required to answer.
Amalia Plata, in 1954, had purchased a parcel of for which the Provincial
Register of Deeds issued Torrens Certificate of Title (Transfer) No. 25855 in the
name of Amalia Plata, single, Filipino citizen.
On 13 February 1958, she sold the property to one Celso Saldaa who obtained
TCT No. 40459 therefor; but seven months afterwards, on 24 September 1958,
Saldaa resold the same property to Amalia Plata, married to Gaudencio
Begosa, " and a new cetificate of Title No. 43520 was issued to the vendee,
Amalia Plata
On the same date, 24 September 1958, "Amalia Plata of legal age, Filipino,
married to Gaudencio Begosa," in consideration of a loan of P3,000, mortgaged
to Cesarea Villanueva married to Gregorio Leao, the identical property and its
improvements "of which the mortgagor declares to be hers as the absolute owner
thereof." The mortgage was also signed by Gaudencio Begosa, as co-mortgagor
(Exh. 4).
For failure to pay the mortgage, the same was extrajudicially foreclosed under
Act 3135, and sold on 12 April 1960 to the mortgagee as the highest bidder;
13 May 1961, the Sheriff issued a final deed of sale on the strength of which the
Register of Deeds issued the buyer TCT, No. 55949 (Exhs. 5, 6, 7).
Subsequently, the respondent, Villanueva, sued Gaudencio Begosa alone for
illegal detainer and obtained judgment against him in the court of first instance,
that became final. 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 of the judgment creditors, the court
below cited both Begosa and Plata for contempt ,and, finding her explanation
unsatisfactory, found her guilty and sentenced her, as stated at the beginning of
this decision.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner, Amalia Plata, is bound by the detainer judgment against
Gaudencio Begosa in Civil Case No. Q-6250.
Ruling:

No. Petitioner denies it, claiming that she was never lawfully married to Begosa,
and that she had acquired the property while still single, and was in possession
thereof when the Sheriff of Rizal attempted to enforce the writ of ejectment.
Respondent Villanueva and her husband maintain, on the other hand, that Plata
had repeatedly acknowledged being married to Begosa; that she had lived with
him openly as his wife, and their marriage is presumed; that, therefore, she is to
be deemed as holding under Begosa, and is bound by the judgment against the
latter.
We are constrained to uphold as meritorious the petitioner's stand. Granting that
the evidence before us against the marriage of petitioner Amalia Plata to
Gaudencio Begosa is weak, considering the admissions of married status in
public documents (Answer, Exhs. 3 and 4); the well known presumption that
persons openly living together as husband and wife are legally married to each
other, and that the prior marriage of Begosa to someone else does not
necessarily exclude the possibility of a valid subsequent marriage to herein
petitioner; still the respondents Villanueva could not ignore the paraphernal
character of the property in question, which had been unquestionably acquired
by Plata while still single. The subsequent conveyance thereof to Celso Saldaa,
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 Saldaa 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 Saldaa to her (Ans., Exhs. 3 and 4).
It is true that Gaudencio Begosa signed the mortgage (Exh. 4) as a comortgagor; but by itself alone that circumstance 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.
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, therefore, 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

CONCEPCION ABELLA DE DIAZ,

vs.
ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.
Facts:
Domingo Diaz purchased from Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. (EGI), machinery and
equipment for the construction and installation of an electric light plant. For the balance
of the purchase price, a judgment was obtained by EGI against Domingo Diaz. On an
execution issued to enforce such judgment, the sheriff levied on certain properties.
accordingly, Concepcion Diaz wife) filed this case in the Court of First Instance of
Camarines ur alleging that the properties which had been levied upon #ere her
paraphernal property and that she opposed to her husbands going into the electric light
business, insisting that the business was a personal one of her husband and not an
enterprise of the conjugal partnership.
The trial court held that all the property was unlawfully levied upon and made the
preliminary injunction permanent.
Issue:
Whether or not, the paraphernal properties of the wife levied upon are exempt
from execution for the debts contracted by the husband.
Ruling:
The Court held that under Article 1412, Civil Code, the husband, as the manager
of the partnership, has the right to embark the partnership in an ordinary commercial
enterprise for gain, and the fact that the wife may not approve of a venture does not
ma/e it a private and personal one of the husband. In turn, regarding the fruits of the
paraphernal property, the 'court held that the fruits of the paraphernal property belonged
to the conjugal partnership, thus, they are responsible for the debts of that partnership.
However, regarding the ownership of buildings, the Court held citing 1anresa in
his commentaries that if the building is constructed by the owner of the land with her
private money, the building does not belong to the partnership. Thus, such buildings are
not subject to levy and sale in this case since, the buildings in dispute, were built on the
lands of the appellee with the appellees own personal money.

Pe Lim vs Court of Appeals 270 SCRA 1

Facts:

Before us is one of those cases where a man woos a maid, succeeds in

seducing and impregnating her, only to disclaim the paternity of the child when made to
account for his misdeeds.
DNA, being a relatively new science, it has not as yet been accorded official
recognition by our courts. Paternity will still have to be resolved by such conventional
evidence as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father.
Issue:
Whether or not Raymond is the father
Ruling:
The trial court rendered a decision on June 10, 1971, the dispositive portion of
which states: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant ordering herein defendant, Raymond Pe Lim to give support to
his natural daughter, minor Joanna Rose Pe Lim in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00). Philippine Currency, per month for the support, maintenance, education
and well-being of said child, the same to be paid on or before the 5th day of each
month and monthly thereafter starting June, 1991, until the said minor Joanna Rose Pe
Lim, shall have reached the age of majority. The defendant is further ordered to pay the
plaintiff the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred (P7,500.00) Pesos, Philippine
Currency, for attorney's fees and other litigation expenses. No costs.

Mendoza vs CA
Facts:
The complaint was filed on August 21, 1981, in the Regional Trial Court in Cebu
City. Teopista Toring Tufiacao, the herein private respondent, alleged that she was born
on August 20, 1930, to Brigida Toring, who was then single, and defendant Casimiro
Mendoza, married at that time to Emiliana Barrientos. The private respondent claimed
she was the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza, but the latter denied her claim.
He denied it to his dying day. Teopista averred that Mendoza recognized her as an
illegitimate child by treating her as such and according her the rights and privileges of a
recognized illegitimate child. The trial court believed him and dismissed her complaint
for compulsory recognition. The appellate court did not and reversed the judgment of
the court below. Now the issue is before us on certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not Teopista was in continuous possession of her claimed status of
an illegitimate child under Article 283 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Teopista Toring Tufiacao has proved that she is the
illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza and is entitled to be recognized as such. In
so holding, we give effect to the policy of the Civil Code and the Family Code to
liberalize the rule on the investigation of "the paternity of illegitimate children, without
prejudice to the right of the alleged parent to resist the claimed status with his own

defenses, including evidence now obtainable through the facilities of modern medicine
and technology.
Petition Denied

De Asis vs CA
Facts:
Vircel Andres as legal guardian of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed an action in
1988 for maintenance and support against the alleged father Manuel De Asis who failed
to provide support and maintenance despite repeated demands. Vircel later on
withdrew the complaint in 1989 for the reason that Manuel denied paternity of the said
minor and due to such denial, it seems useless to pursue the said action. They
mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint with the condition that
Manuel will not pursue his counter claim. However in 1995, Vircel filed a similar
complaint against the alleged father, this time as the minors legal guardian/mother.
Manuel interposed maxim of res judicata for the dismissal of the case. He maintained
that since the obligation to give support is based on existence of paternity between the
child and putative parent, lack thereof negates the right to claim support.
Issue:
WON the minor is barred from action for support.
Ruling:
The right to give support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a third
person. The original agreement between the parties to dismiss the initial complaint was
in the nature of a compromise regarding future support which is prohibited by law. With
respect to Manuels contention for the lack of filial relationship between him and the
child and agreement of Vircel in not pursuing the original claim, the Court held that
existence of lack thereof of any filial relationship between parties was not a matter
which the parties must decide but should be decided by the Court itself. While it is true
that in order to claim support, filiation or paternity must be first shown between the
parties, but the presence or lack thereof must be judicially established and declaration is
vested in the Court. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties. Hence, the
first dismissal cannot bar the filing of another action asking for the same relief (no force
and effect). Furthermore, the defense of res judicata claimed by Manuel was untenable
since future support cannot be the subject of any compromise or waiver.
Paternity or filiation, or the lack of it, is a relationship that must be judicially
established and it is for the court to declare its existence or absence.