4. Ong v. CA [G.R. No.

63025]
Jas de Guzman

Topics:
 Administration of exclusive property
 Charges upon and obligations of CPG (with consent)

Petitioner: Ramon Ong

Respondents: Court of Appeals, Francisco Boix and Arsenio Camino

Facts:
 Ramon Ong filed a complaint against Deputy Sheriff Arsenio Camino and Francisco Boix
to annul the action sale of a parcel of land allegedly owned conjugally by him and his
former wife Teodora, awarded in favor of Boix as the highest bidder in the auction sale.
 Petitioner’s wife, Teodora Ong, conducted her own logging business in Camarines Sur.
To further her business operation, she secured a loan in the amount of P2,287.83 from
Francisco Boix.
 Due to her mismanagement, she defaulted in her obligations which prompted Boix to file
a complaint to collect the sum legally due with interest against Teodora and Ramon, the
latter being joined as the husband. The spouses were declared in default and judgement
was rendered in favor of Boix. He then moved to execute the judgement.
 Deputy Sherrif Camino levied and attached a parcel of land in Camarines Sur under the
name of Teodora Ong. An auction sale was held and Boix was adjudged to be the
highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale and writ of possession were issued in his favor.
 Ramon Ong the brought the case to the CA to annul the auction sale on the following
grounds:
o Property was conjugal and thus couldn’t be held liable for his wife’s
personal debts (this one lang yung related sa topic natin)
o Auction sale of the property is null and void having been made on a date different
from that reflected in the advertisement thereof
o Such advertisement was published in a newspaper which is not of general
circulation
 The CA held that the said property is paraphernal property since it was declared in the
name of “Teodora B. Ong”, while the house that was built theron was was declared in
the name of “Ramon C. Ong and Teodora B. Ong”.
  Petitioner argues that since the surname “Ong” was carried by Teodora in the tax
declaration, that indicated that the subject property was acquired during the marriage
and must be considered as conjugal.

Issue: Whether the parcel of land is the exclusive property of the wife (YES)
Ruling: yung mga naka bold lang yung important sa issue/topic natin ok hehe 

 The lot in question is paraphernal and is therefore liable for Teodora’s personal
debts.
 The mere use of the husband’s surname in the tax declaration of the subject
property is not sufficient proof that said property was acquired during the
marriage
 It is undisputed that the parcel of land was declared solely in the wife’s name but
the house built thereon was declared in the name of the spouses. When the
property is registered in the name of one spouse only and there is no showing as
to when the property was acquired by said spouse, this is an indication that the
property belongs exclusively to said spouse.
 Art. 160 NCC – the party who invokes the presumption that all property of the
marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership must first prove that the property
was acquired during the marriage.
 Art. 117 NCC – the wife is entitled to engage in business although the husband may
object.
 The wife’s exclusive (paraphernal) properties, as well as those part of their conjugal
partnership, shall be liable for obligations incurred by the wife in the course of her
business.
 It is clear from the records that the wife was engaged in the logging business with the
husband’s knowledge and without objection on his part = CONSENT
 Whatever profits the wife may earn from her business will go to the conjugal partnership.
It would only be just and equitable that the obligations contracted by the wife in
connection with her business may also be chargeable not only against her paraphernal
property but also against the conjugal property of her and Ramon.