Topic Property Relations Between Husband and Wife
Case No. G.R. No. 164201 | December 10, 2012
Case Name Pana v Heirs of Juanite, Sr.
Full Case EFREN PANA, Petitioner,
Name vs.
HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE, SR. and JOSE
JUANITE, JR., Respondents.
Ponente ABAD, J.
Doctrines The Family Code does not intend to automatically
convert the property regime of spouses to one of
absolute community.
Since under the Civil Code, the default property
regime is conjugal partnership of gains, it shall remain
as that absent evidence to the contrary. Spouses are
not allowed to change their property regime post-
marriage, save in cases provided by the Family Code.
The provisions of the Family Code shall govern
conjugal partnership of gains established prior to its
enactment. Thus, the conjugal assets of the spouses
may be held to answer for fines (or in this case, civil
liabilities arising from a criminal case) imposed upon
one of the spouses, for as long as the responsibilities
enumerated in Art. 121 of the FC are not impaired,
and subject to other conditions provided by the
Code.
Nature Determination of the propriety of levy and execution
on conjugal properties where one of the spouses has
been found guilty of a crime and ordered to pay civil
indemnities to the victims' heirs.
RELEVANT FACTS
Surigao RTC charged spouses Efren and Melecia Pana and others of
murder. On July 9, 1997, the RTC found Melecia and others guilty as
charged while acquitting Efren. The penalty imposed is death. In addition,
the guilty parties are ordered to pay the heirs of the victims, jointly and
severally:
 civil indemnity of 50,000;
 moral damages of 50,000 each; and
 actual damages of 150,000
On May 24, 2001, on appeal, the judgement was affirmed with
modifications. The penalty imposed is now reclusion perpetua. In addition,
the guilty parties are ordered to pay the following to same heirs:
 civil indemnity of 50,000; [same]
 moral damages of 50,000 each; [same]
 [actual damages deleted for lack of evidentiary basis]
 temperate damages of 15,000 each; and
 exemplary damages of 50,000 each. [to be paid solidarily]
The decision became final on October 1, 2001.
In 2002, the judgement was moved for execution. The spouses refused,
claiming that the levied properties were conjugal assets, not paraphernal
assets of Melecia. Both the RTC and CA denied the spouses motions.
Hence the present case:
ISSUES – RULING – DOCTRINE
1. What regime governs that property relations of spouses Efren and
Melecia?
The RELATIVE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY or the
CONJUGAL PARTNERHSIP OF GAINS, under the Civil Code.
a. The marriage of the spouses is governed by the Civil Code, given
that:
- it was celebrated prior to the enactment of the Family Code;
and
- they have no pre-nuptial agreement.
b. Art. 256 of the FC [on retroactivity] did not intend to automatically
convert the property relation of spouses to one of absolute
community.
i. Art. 76 of the FC provided that marriage settlements cannot
be modified except (1) prior to marriage; and (2) subject to the
provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136.
ii. Thus, post marriage modification of the settlement can only be
made where:
 Art. 66, the absolute community or conjugal
partnership was dissolved and liquidated upon a decree
of legal separation;
 Art. 67, the spouses who were legally separated
reconciled and agreed to revive their former property
regime;
 Art. 128, 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;
 Art. 135, there was judicial separation of property
under Article 135
 Art. 136, 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 the case of Efren
and Melecia. So converting their property relations from
CPG to ACP post-marriage is not justified.
iii. Such conversion will impair the spouses vested rights over
their separate properties.
 Art. 142, only the (1) fruits of their separate property;
and (2) incomes from their work or industry, goes to
the common fund. The spouses retain ownership over
their separate properties.
iv. The presumption that the spouses’ property relations is that of
CPG stands absent evidence to the contrary, under Art. 119 of
the Civil Code.
v. However, the CGP will now be governed by the Family Code
provisions pursuant to Art. 105. So the Court looked at FC
provisions in determining whether the conjugal assets may be
held to answer Melecia’s civil liabilities. [there are transitory
provisions on CPG under the FC, so this is not eliminated]
2. Can the conjugal assets be made to answer the civil liabilities imposed
on Melecia in the murder case?
YES. But only insofar as it is not prejudicial to the responsibilities
under Art. 121 of the Family Code.
a. As provided under Art. 122, the general rule is the conjugal assets
cannot be held liable for debts contracted prior to or during the
marriage, the following are the exceptions:
i. those which redounded to the benefit of the family; and
ii. (1) debts prior to the marriage; (2) fines and indemnities
imposed upon the spouses; and (3) support of illegitimate
children, subject to the ff conditions:
- the spouse charged has no exclusive properties or it is
insufficient;
- upon liquidation, the spouse for whose benefit payment
was made shall be charged for the amount paid out of the
CPG.
Since Efren did not contend that Melecia has no exclusive
properties, Art. 122 shall apply. The conjugal assets shall
answer for the civil liabilities after determining that the
responsibilities under Art. 121 were covered:
(1) The support of the spouse and children;
(2) Debts contracted during the marriage for the benefit of the
CPG or with consent of the spouses;
(3) Debts contracted by one without the consent of the other
if beneficial to the family;
(4) Taxes and other charges upon the CPG;
(5) Taxes and expenses for mere preservation during the
marriage upon the separate property of either spouse;
 (6) Expenses for the professional, vocational, or other activity
for self-improvement of the spouses;
(7) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse beneficial to the family;
(8) Donated or promise by both spouses in favor of their
common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of
commencing or completing a professional or vocational
course or other activity for self-improvement; and
(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit
is found to be groundless.

b. No prior liquidation of the partnership is required under Art. 122.

This is not unfair given that the offending spouse shall be charged
of the amount paid out of the conjugal asset in case there should
be liquidation.

DISPOSITIVE POSITION

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the

Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 77198 dated January
29, 2004 and May 14, 2004. The Regional Trial Court of Surigao City,
Branch 30, shall first ascertain that, in enforcing the writ of execution on
the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melecia Pana for the
satisfaction of the indemnities imposed by final judgment on the latter
accused in Criminal Cases 4232 and 4233, the responsibilities enumerated
in Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered.

SO ORDERED.