In Cabreza v. Cabreza, the Supreme Court ruled that a final judgment ordering the sale of a conjugal family home to settle marital debts is valid even after a marriage annulment, prioritizing creditors’ rights over a spouse’s claim to the home where the children reside. This means that a court-ordered sale of marital property can proceed despite arguments about familial needs if the liquidation of conjugal assets has been finalized in a prior, unappealed judgment.

Dividing the House: Can Article 129 Shield a Family Home After Annulment?

Amparo Cabreza and Ceferino Cabreza, Jr. faced the dissolution of their marriage, a legal battle that reached the highest court in the Philippines. After their marriage was annulled, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the liquidation of their conjugal partnership, which primarily consisted of their family home. Ceferino sought the sale of this property to settle marital debts, a move Amparo contested, citing Article 129(9) of the Family Code. This provision generally allows the spouse with whom the majority of the children reside to be awarded the family home during a partition of properties.

Amparo argued that since the majority of her children, though of legal age, chose to remain with her, the family home should be awarded to her. The RTC denied her motion, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reasoned that Article 129(9) applies when there are other properties to be divided, which was not the case here. More crucially, the CA emphasized that the RTC’s order to sell the property had already become final and executory.

The Supreme Court (SC) was tasked with determining whether the order of possession, writ of possession, and notice to vacate, which authorized the sale of the family home, unlawfully varied the terms of the RTC’s original decision. The heart of the matter revolved around whether the RTC’s initial decision for the sale of the property was indeed final and could be enforced despite Amparo’s claim under Article 129(9) of the Family Code.

The SC underscored the critical procedural missteps made by Amparo. The court noted that she had previously questioned the May 26, 2003 Order of the RTC, which mandated the sale of the family home, in CA-G.R. SP No. 77506. However, this petition was dismissed. Her subsequent petition to the SC, G.R. No. 162745, was also denied, making the RTC’s order final. By failing to secure a favorable outcome in these earlier challenges, Amparo had effectively forfeited her right to contest the sale of the property.

Building on this, the SC reasoned that granting Amparo’s current petition would undermine the finality of the May 26, 2003 Order. This prior order explicitly authorized the sale of the family home, and all subsequent actions, including the writ of possession and notice to vacate, were merely implementing this final decision. Allowing Amparo to re-litigate the issue would be tantamount to reopening a case that had already been decided with finality.

The SC also addressed Amparo’s contention that the deed of sale between Ceferino and BJD Holdings Corporation was invalid due to her lack of consent. However, the court pointed out that a separate case, CA-G.R CV No. 86511, was already pending before the CA, specifically addressing the validity of the deed of sale. Thus, the issue could not be properly resolved in the present petition.

The Court ultimately held that the factual findings of both the RTC and the CA—that the family home was the only asset of the conjugal partnership—were binding. Therefore, it found no compelling reason to reverse the lower courts’ decisions. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals, thereby allowing the sale of the family home to proceed in order to satisfy the debts of the conjugal partnership.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the order to sell the family home to settle marital debts was valid after the annulment of marriage and whether it unlawfully varied the terms of the original court decision.
What is Article 129(9) of the Family Code?	Article 129(9) generally allows the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain to be awarded the conjugal dwelling and lot during the partition of properties.
Why didn’t Article 129(9) apply in this case?	The court held that Article 129(9) typically applies when there are other properties to be divided, which was not the case here, as the family home was the primary asset. Additionally, the order to sell the family home had already become final and executory.
What was the significance of the May 26, 2003 RTC Order?	The May 26, 2003 RTC Order, which mandated the sale of the family home, was significant because it became final after Amparo’s attempts to question it were denied by both the CA and the SC. This finality prevented her from re-litigating the issue.
What procedural missteps did Amparo make?	Amparo failed to secure favorable outcomes in her previous petitions questioning the sale, and she attempted to raise issues in the current petition that should have been addressed earlier.
Was the validity of the deed of sale addressed in this case?	No, the validity of the deed of sale was not addressed in this case because a separate case (CA-G.R CV No. 86511) was already pending before the CA to resolve that issue.
What does “final and executory” mean in this context?	“Final and executory” means that the court’s decision can no longer be appealed or modified, and it must be enforced as it stands.
What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?	The Supreme Court denied Amparo’s petition and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals, allowing the sale of the family home to proceed to satisfy the debts of the conjugal partnership.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cabreza v. Cabreza underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting the finality of court orders. This case serves as a reminder that while the law aims to protect the family home, it cannot override the rights of creditors when a judgment for the liquidation of conjugal assets has become final.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Amparo Robles Cabreza v. Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr., G.R. No. 171260, September 11, 2009