Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • GO vs YAMANE Property Dispute

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    915 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over whether a property registered under Muriel Yamane's name is considered conjugal or paraphernal property. The Court of Appeals ruled it was conjugal property as it was acquired during their marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal unless shown to be exclusive to one spouse. It also held the property cannot be used to satisfy Muriel's personal obligation to her attorney that did not benefit the conjugal partnership.

    Original Description:

    Go vs Yamane case digest

    Original Title

    Go vs Yamane

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute over whether a property registered under Muriel Yamane's name is considered conjugal or paraphernal property. The Court of Appeals ruled it was conjugal property as it was acquired during their marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal unless shown to be exclusive to one spouse. It also held the property cannot be used to satisfy Muriel's personal obligation to her attorney that did not benefit the conjugal partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    915 views1 page

    GO vs YAMANE Property Dispute

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    This case involves a dispute over whether a property registered under Muriel Yamane's name is considered conjugal or paraphernal property. The Court of Appeals ruled it was conjugal property as it was acquired during their marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal unless shown to be exclusive to one spouse. It also held the property cannot be used to satisfy Muriel's personal obligation to her attorney that did not benefit the conjugal partnership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    GOvsYAMANE

    Petitioners:SpousesJOSEPHINEMENDOZAGO&HENRYGO
    Respondent:LEONARDOYAMANE
    FACTS:
    LotinBaguioCityisregisteredinthenameofMurielYamane,wifeofLeonardoYamane.Atty.DeGuzmanwho
    handledacaseforwifeandhersistersleviedthesaidpropertytosatisfythelienforattorneysfees.
    TheRTCofBaguioCityheldthatthesubjectparceloflandwastheparaphernalpropertyofMurielYamaneandnotthe
    conjugalpropertyofthespouses.LeonardoYamane,husbandfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwasdenied.The
    casewasbroughttotheCourtofAppeals.
    TheCourtofAppealsreversedthedecisionoftheRTC.Theappellatecourtcontendsthat,propertyacquiredduring
    marriageispresumedtobeconjugal,unlesstheexclusivefundsofonespouseareshowntohavebeenusedforthe
    purpose.
    HusbandsnameappearedontheTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)andtheDeedofAbsoluteSale.Bothdocuments
    indicatethatMurielwasmarriedtoLeonardoYamane.
    ISSUE:
    Whetherthenatureofthepropertyisconjugalorparaphernal
    HELD:
    Propertypurchasedbyspousesduringtheexistenceoftheirmarriageispresumedtobeconjugalinnature,unlessitbe
    provedthatitpertainsexclusivelytothehusbandortothewife.(Article160)
    Thenatureofaproperty,whetherconjugalorparaphernal,isdeterminedbylawandnotbythewillofoneofthespouses.
    Themereregistrationofapropertyinthenameofonespousedoesnotdestroyitsconjugalnature.Conjugalproperty
    cannotbeheldliableforthepersonalobligationcontractedbyonespouse,unlesssomeadvantageofbenefitisshownto
    haveaccruedtotheconjugalpartnership.
    TheCAcommittednoerrorindeclaringthattheparceloflandbelongedtotheconjugalpartnershipofSpousesMuriel
    andLeonardoYamane.TheyacquireditfromEugenePucayonFebruary27,1967,orspecificallyduringthemarriage.We
    thenfollowtherulethatproofoftheacquisitionofthesubjectpropertyduringamarriagesufficestorenderthestatutory
    presumptionoperative.Itisclearenoughthatthepresentlydisputedpieceoflandpertainstotheconjugalpartnership.
    The contract or transaction between Atty. De Guzman and the Pucay sisters appears to have been incurred for the
    exclusiveinterestofthelatter.Murielwasactingprivatelyforherexclusiveinterestwhenshejoinedhertwosistersin
    hiringtheservicesofAtty.DeGuzmantohandleacaseforthem.Accordingly,whateverexpenseswereincurredbyMuriel
    inthelitigationforherandhersisters'privateandexclusiveinterests,areherexclusiveresponsibilityandcertainlycannot
    bechargedagainstthecontestedconjugalproperty.Thispieceoflandmaynotbeusedtopayforherindebtedness,because
    herobligationhasnotbeenshowntobeoneofthechargesagainsttheconjugalpartnership.
    Thepowerofthecourtinexecutingjudgmentsextendsonlytopropertiesunquestionablybelongingtothejudgment
    debtoralone.Inthiscase,therefore,thepropertybeingconjugalinnaturecannotbeleviedupon.PetitionisDENIED.

    You might also like