RAMON C. ONG V.

COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. L-63025, November 29, 1991)

PARAS, J.:

FACTS:

Ramon Ong filed a complaint against defendants to annul the auction of a sale of a parcel of land,
allegedly owned conjugally by petitioner and his former wife Teodora Ong. The said land was awarded
to Boix, the highest bidder, in an auction sale and the title to the property was duly registered.

Subject on dispute is that petitioner’s wife, conduced her own logging business and secured a loan from
Boix. Unfortunately, she defaulted in the obligation and this prompted Boix to file a complaint to collect
the sum legally due plus interest against the spouses, being joined.

Petitioner contended that subject property is conjugal, which his wife in the case at bar could not legally
bind, and considering that the obligation was contracted only by his wife, the levy of the subject
property not owned exclusively by the wife jointly with the husband is improper.

The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the petition to quash the writ of possession.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the questioned property sold at the auction is a conjugal property of the respondent
and his wife

HELD:

No. The Court disagrees. The questioned property is paraphernal. The mere use of the surname of the
husband in the tax declaration of the subject property is not sufficient proof that the same was acquired
during the marriage and hence, conjugal. The Court then holds that the lot in question is paraphernal
and liable for the personal debts of the wife.

As provided in Article 160 of the New Civil Code that the spouses must first prove that all property was
acquired during the marriage and thus, belongs to the conjugal partnership. Proof of acquisition during
the marriage is sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.

Even if the disputed property is one of conjugal ownership, the same may still be liable for the debts of
the wife in this case. Article 117 of the Civil Code provides that the wife may engage in business
although the husband may object. The acts of the husband, having knowledge and without objection,
gave his implied consent to the wife’s engagement in business. In the case at bar, the wife’s paraphernal
properties, shall be liable for the obligations incurred by the wife in her course of her business. Hence,
whatever profits are earned by the wife from her business go to the conjugal partnership and it is just
that the obligations contracted by respondent’s wife in connection with her business may also be
chargeable not only against her paraphernal property but also against the conjugal property of the
spouses.