G.R. No.

L-20825 December 28, 1964  Upon motion of the judgment creditors, the court below
cited both Begosa and Plata for contempt and, finding
AMALIA PLATA, petitioner, her explanation unsatisfactory, found her guilty and
vs.
sentenced her.
HON. NICASIO YATCO, Judge, Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch V; BENITO MACROHON, Sheriff of Quezon City o Finding petitioner Plata in contempt of court for
and The Spouses CESAREA E. VILLANUEVA and GREGORIO refusing to vacate certain property, and
LEAÑO respondents. sentencing her to pay a fine of P100, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
Rosales & Montesa for petitioner. with a warning of more drastic action should she
Venida & Demonteverda Law Offices for respondents. persist in disobeying the writ issued by said
court.
REYES J.B.L., J.:
ISSUE
FACTS
WON Amalia Plata is bound by the detainer judgement
 Amalia Plata resorts to this Supreme Court for a writ against Gaudencio Begosa
of certiorari
 Amalia Plata, in 1954, had purchased a parcel of land HELD/RULING
(Lot. 23, Block 4-M, of Subdivision plan PSD-59) in
 NO. Amalia Plata is not bound by the detainer
Caloocan, Rizal
judgement
o Provincial Register of Deeds issued Torrens
o CLAIMS:
Certificate of Title (Transfer) No. 25855 in the
Petitioner Amalia Plata claims that she was
name of Amalia Plata, Single, and Filipino Citizen.
never lawfully married to Begosa, and that she
 On 13 February 1958, she sold the property to one Celso
had acquired the property while still single, and
Saldaña who obtained TCT No. 40459
was in possession thereof when the Sheriff of
 Seven months afterwards, on 24 September 1958,
Rizal attempted to enforce the writ of
Saldaña resold the same property to Amalia Plata,
ejectment.
married to Gaudencio Begosa (new certificate of Title
Respondent Villanueva and her husband
No. 43520 was issued)
maintain, on the other hand, that Plata had
 24 September 1958, Amalia Plata in consideration of a
repeatedly acknowledged being married to
loan of P3,000, mortgaged to Cesarea Villanueva married
Begosa; that she had lived with him openly as his
to Gregorio Leaño
wife, and their marriage is presumed; that,
o the mortgage was also signed by Gaudencio
therefore, she is to be deemed as holding under
Begosa, as co-mortgagor
Begosa, and is bound by the judgment against
 For failure to pay the mortgage, the same was
the latter.
extrajudicially foreclosed under Act 3135, and sold on 12
April 1960 to the mortgagee as the highest bidder
 considering the admissions of married status in public
o 3 May 1961, the Sheriff issued a final deed of
documents the well known presumption that persons
sale on the strength of which the Register of
openly living together as husband and wife are legally
Deeds issued the buyer TCT, No. 55949
married to each other, and that the prior marriage of
 Subsequently, the respondent, Villanueva, sued
Begosa to someone else does not necessarily exclude the
Gaudencio Begosa alone for illegal detainer and
possibility of a valid subsequent marriage to herein
obtained judgment against him in the court of first
petitioner; still the respondents Villanueva could not
instance, that became final
ignore the paraphernal character of the property in
 A writ of execution was duly issued, but Amalia Plata
question, which had been unquestionably acquired by
resisted all efforts to eject her from the property, and
Plata while still single, as shown by Transfer Certificate
she filed a third party claim, averring ownership of the
of Title No. 25855 of Rizal (Art. 148 of the New Civil
property
Code)
 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
 Gaudencio Begosa signed the mortgage as a co-
mortgagor; but by itself alone that circumstance would
not suffice to convert the land into conjugal property,
considering that it was paraphernal in origin.
 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)
o 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 (Chanco vs.
Madrilejos, 9 Phil. 356; A. Jose Realty vs. Galao,
et al., 76 Phil. 201; Segarro vs. Maronilla, L-
14428, July 26, 1960; Weigall vs. Shuster, 11 Phil.
340))
 Court need not decide here whether the property was
validly conveyed to respondents Villanueva, since that
issue is the subject of an independent proceeding in the
Court of First Instance
 The writ of certiorari prayed for is granted, and the order
of the lower court, dated 4 January 1963, is annulled and
set aside. The preliminary injunction is made permanent
X-------------------------------------------------------X
CIVIL CODE
CHAPTER 3 (Paraphernal Property)
Article 135. All property brought by the wife to the marriage, as
well as all property she acquires during the marriage, in
accordance with article 148, is paraphernal. (1381a)
Article 136. The wife retains the ownership of the paraphernal
property. (1382)
Article 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)
Article 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)
CHAPTER 4 SECTION 2
Exclusive Property of Each Spouse
Article 148. The following shall be the exclusive property of each
spouse:
(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;
(2) That which each acquires, during the marriage, by lucrative
title;
(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption or by exchange
with other property belonging to only one of the spouses;
(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of
the husband. (1396)
CHAPTER 4 SECTION 3
Conjugal Partnership Property
Article 153. The following are conjugal partnership property:
(1) 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;
(2) That which is obtained by the industry, or work, or as salary of
the spouses, or of either of them;
(3) 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)
(FAMILY CODE) ART. 117 - ART. 119
• Two-tiered test in determining whether property acquired during
marriage is conjugal or exclusive
1. Manner of acquisition test (whether onerous or gratuitous);
2. In case of onerous acquisitions, source of funds test (whether
conjugal funds or exclusive money)
• If acquired during marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse —
Exclusive property
• If through onerous title — ownership will depend upon the SOURCE
of funds used in such acquisition
- If from exclusive money = Exclusive property
- If from CP = CP, regardless of whether the acquisition is in the name
of the CP or in the name of only one of the spouses
• For properties purchased on installments by either or both spouses
prior to marriage but the payment is completed only during marriage
- TIME WHEN FULL OWNERSHIP IS VESTED determines ownership of
the property, not the source of fund or time when payment is
completed