Cabreza vs Cabreza

September 11, 2009

Ponente: PERALTA, J
Topic: Rights of creditors
Facts:
Ceferino Cabreza Jr (respondent) filed a petition of nullity of his marriage (FC36) to Amparo
Robles Cabreza (petitioner) with the RTC. RTC granted this petition and oredered the
dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership in accordance with FC 129, without
prejudice to creditors. Ceferino then filed for a motion of execution ordering the Dissolution
of conjugal partnership. He sought liquidation of their conjugal home to be sold and for the
proceeds to be divided accordingly. RTC issued an order granting this petition and another
one allowing prospective buyers to inspect the property.
Amparo filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.
RTC issued an order granting writ of possesion to the buyer of the property, BJD Holdings
corporation. A notice to vacate was given to Amparo.
Amparo filed a motion to hold in abeyance the writ of possession and notice to vacate
arguing that FC129(9) states that the conjugal dwelling shall be adjudicated to the spouse
with whom the majority of the children choose to remain. She asserted that the family
home should be given to her. This was dismissed because the decision had long become
final and executory. RTC said that FC 129(9) presupposes a situation where there are
properties aside from the conjugal dwelling. Again, Amparo was denied.
(to salvage her case, she filed new ones questioning the validity of sale) When this case was
filed with the SC, there were 3 more filed with the CA questioning the validity of the deed of
sale between Ceferino and BJD HIldings Corporation because she did not give consent. The
CA granted these and remanded them to RTC. But the RTC had already rendered judgment
as final and executory (to sell the family dwelling)
Art. 160. When a creditor whose claims is not among those mentioned in Article 155 obtains a judgment in his favor, and he has
reasonable grounds to believe that the family home is actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article 157, he may apply to
the court which rendered the judgment for an order directing the sale of the property under execution. The court shall so order if it finds
that the actual value of the family home exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law as of the time of its constitution. If the increased
actual value exceeds the maximum allowed in Article 157 and results from subsequent voluntary improvements introduced by the person
or persons constituting the family home, by the owner or owners of the property, or by any of the beneficiaries, the same rule and
procedure shall apply.At the execution sale, no bid below the value allowed for a family home shall be considered. The proceeds shall be
applied first to the amount mentioned in Article 157, and then to the liabilities under the judgment and the costs. The excess, if any, shall
be delivered to the judgment debtor. (247a, 248a)
Art. 161. For purposes of availing of the benefits of a family home as provided for in this Chapter, a person may constitute, or be the
beneficiary of, only one family home. (n)
Art. 162. The provisions in this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are applicable. (n)
Art. 129. Upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, the following procedure shall apply:(9) In the partition of the
properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to
the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have
chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into
consideration the best interests of said children. (181a, 182a, 183a, 184a, 185a)

Issue:
W/N the sale of the property is varies the previous RTC decision should no longer be litigated
anew (to allow so would permit Amparo to indirectly reopen her failed petition), (so, in short,
W/N she can still go after their dwelling despite an executory decision)
HELD
RATIO
No, she cannot raise these new
questions about the sale.

It would be unfair for her to raise her argument in this petition in the
guise of questioning the subsequent implementation orders of the RTC.
She cannot question the validity of sale because she herself said that
this was again a pending case in the CA and therefore cannot be
subject to the petition herein.

note: the sc decision became very procedural because she filed so many cases. but re: the
property, FC129 presupposes the couple has more than 1 property (ie. the conjugal dwelling).
In case you have more properties, you liquidate and divide those, then give the dwelling to the
spouse with the children. If you only have that one property, you have to sell and liquidate
that.
to make a long story short, (sa pagkakaintindi ko), she lost the house during the liquidation
stage so she made new petitions questioning the validity of sale, etc, hoping she could insert
FC 129 again to get her house.