Pana v Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr. and Jose Juanite, Jr. December 10, 2012 FACTS:
The prosecution accused Efren Pana, his wife Melencia, and others of murder before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao S urigao City, Cit y, and eventually a decision was rendered acquitting Efren of the charge for insufficiency insufficiency of evidence but finding Melencia and another person guilty as charged and was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed RTC’s decision but modified the penalty penalty to Reclusion Perpetua. As for the monetary awards, the court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages but deleted the award for actual damages for lack of evidentiary basis. In its place the court made an award of php15, 000 each by way of temperate damages. In addition, the court awarded Php50, 000.00 exemplary damages per victim to be paid solidarily by them. The decision became executory of October 1, 2001. Upon motion for execution by the heirs of the deceased, the RTC ordered the issuance of the writ resulting in the levy of real properties registered in the names of Efren and Melencia. Subsequently, a notice of levy and a notice of sale on execution were issued. On April 3, 2002, Efren and his wife Melecia filed a motion to quash the writ of execution claiming that the properties levied were conjugal assets and not paraphernal of Melecia. On September 16, 2002, the RTC denied the motion. The spouses moved for reconsideration but the RTC denied the same. In this case, it is submitted that Efren and Melencia were married when the Civil Code was still in effect. They did not execute a pre-nuptial agreement, hence CPG governed their property relations. However, both RTC and CA held that property regime changed into ACP when family code took effect it reason out that Art. 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive effect in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Both the RTC and the Court of the Appeals are in error on this point. While it is true that the personal stakes of each spouses in their conjugal assets are inchoate or unclear prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of hains and, therefore none of them can be said to have acquired vested rights in specific assets , it is evident that Article 256 of the Family Code does not intend to reac back and automatically convert into absolute community of property relations all conjugal partnership of gains that existed before 1988 excepting only those with prenuptial agreements. ISSUE: Whether or not the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melencia can be levied and executed upon for the satisfaction of Melencia’s civil liability in the afo resaid murder case.
SUPREME COURT: YES, provided that the conditions under Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered. First of all, the Supreme Court explained that it is clear from the facts that Efren and Melencia were married when the Civil code was still the operative law on marriages. The presumption, absent any evidence eviden ce to the contrary, contrar y, is that they the y were married under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. Furthermore, Article 119 of the Civil Code provides that the future spouses main in marriage settlements agree upon absolute or relative community or conjugal partnership of gains or upon a complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. The family code itself provides in Article 76 that marriage settlements cannot be modified except prior to marriage, and clearly, under this situation, the spouses cannot modify their regime. Post marriage modification of settlements can take place only where (a) the absolute community or conjugal partnership was dissolved and liquidated upon a decree of legal separation; (b) the spouses who were legally separated reconciled and agreed to revive their former property regime; (c)judicial separation of property had been had on the ground that a spouse abandons the other without just cause or fails to comply with his obligations to the family; (d) there was judicial separation of property under article 135; (e) the spouses jointly filed a petition for the voluntary dissolution of their absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains. None of these circumstances exists in this case.
Furthermore, Article 119 provides as well, that in the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same is void, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains established under the civil code shall govern the property regime of the spouses. the family code contains terms governing the conjugal partnership of gains that supersede the terms of the conjugal partnership of gains under the civil code. Article 105 of the family code states that the provisions of such chapter on the conjugal partnership of gains shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses before the affectivity of this code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the civil or other laws as provided in Article 256.
