PEÑA, TABITHA ERLINDA MA. PAS A.

CASE DIGEST

COBB-PEREZ vs. LANTIN

G.R. No. L-22320. May 22, 1968.
Castro, J.

FACTS:

1. Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez is the wife of Damaso Perez.

2. Damaso got involved in a lawsuit when he and Gregorio Subong were sued by Ricardo
Hermoso sometime in 1959 for the recovery of an amount equivalent to unpaid purchases
of leather materials used in Ricardo’s shoe manufacturing business—The judgment debt
which resulted therefrom was P17, 309.44.
3. Subsequently, the Sheriff levied upon 3,573 shares of common stock registered in the
name of Damaso which has a value of around P300,000—Damaso thence contended the
levy as highly excessive and unjust, given that the judgment debt is only around P17,000.
4. From there, the litigation protracted, with sales of execution consequently served and
then suspended and with the case having been remanded to the court of origin a second
time.
5. Finally, in 1963, a sale on execution was scheduled; however, two days prior to the set
date, Mercedes filed a complaint for injunction against Ricardo, causing another
suspension of the execution sale.
6. Mercedes, then, filed with the trial court a motion to lift the execution on the ground that
the levied shares are conjugal in nature—The suspension was, however, lifted by the trial
court for the reason that Mercedes was not party to the case involving Damaso and as
such cannot file said motion.
7. Such lifting of the suspension was followed by the Sheriff publishing at least two more
notices of sale—Said notices set the execution sale of around 200 shares of stock after
Mercedes filed and thereafter denominated an action to vindicate third-party claim over
said stocks.

ISSUE:

W/N the levied shares are conjugal assets of Sps. Perez, thereby making the judgment
debt a personal obligation only of Damaso Perez

RULING:

NO. Damaso Perez practically asserted exclusive ownership of the levied shares;
although he challenged the legality and propriety of the levy with respect to its excessive
coverage, he never raised the question of the conjugal nature of the levied shares. Having
represented himself before the court a quo and in the Court of Appeals as the exclusive owner of
the shares in dispute, he is now precluded from asserting that the levied shares are conjugal
assets, an assertion that he should have advanced with expected
alacrity when he first questioned the legality of the levy. Furthermore, since there is no evidence
as to when the shares of stock were acquired, the fact that they are registered in the name of the
husband alone is an indication that the shares belong exclusively to said spouse.

In addition, it is well-settled that the debts contracted by the husband for and in the
exercise of the industry or profession by which he contributes to the support of the family cannot
be deemed to be his exclusive and private debts.

*** The party who invokes the presumption in Article 93g must first prove that the property in
controversy has been acquired during the existence of the marriage. Proof of acquisition during
the coverture is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of
community (conjugal) ownership. (Gesmundo, p. 297)

*** There is legal presumption that the administrator of the absolute community (conjugal
partnership) contracts obligations for the benefit of the family or the absolute community
(conjugal partnership). (Gesmundo, p. 309)