FACTS:

Romarico Henson and Katrina Pineda have been living separately for most of their marriage. In 1971, Romarico purchased a parcel of land with borrowed money. In 1972, Katrina consigned jewelry for sale in Hong Kong but failed to return it, resulting in a bounced check and estafa charges, which were eventually dismissed. Anita Chan and her husband filed a case to collect money owed by both Katrina and Romarico. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering both defendants to pay the amount owed. Four lots registered in Romarico's name were levied upon and sold at public auction, including one that was subject to extrajudicial foreclosure but later redeemed. Romarico then filed a case to annul the decision, claiming he was not represented by counsel and did not authorize his wife's business transactions. The lower court issued an order restraining the Register of Deeds from issuing the final bill of sale and a preliminary injunction.

The court ruled that the judgment in the case involving Romarico was null and void because he was not given his day in court and was not represented by counsel. The court also ordered the reconveyance of the levied properties, finding that the conjugal partnership should not be held liable for Katrina's personal indebtedness. The decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, which also held that the judgment in the earlier case had not yet become final since Romarico was not served with it and was not represented by counsel. The appellate court further ruled that the properties could not be levied upon as conjugal properties because they were purchased by Romarico using his own funds.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Romarico Henson is estopped from asserting his rights over the properties due to his silence during the 2-year period between the filing of the complaint and the public auction sale.

2. Whether the auction sale should be nullified and the properties returned to Romarico Henson.

3. Whether Romarico Henson was appropriately represented by Atty. Albino in Civil Case No. 2224.

4. Whether Atty. Yumul was duly authorized to appear on behalf of defendant Romarico Henson in Civil Case No. 2224.

5. Whether the decision in Civil Case No. 2224 is null and void for failure to observe notice requirements and lack of jurisdiction.

6. Whether the properties involved are exclusively owned by Romarico Henson or belong to the conjugal partnership.

7. Whether Katrina Henson's indebtedness can be paid for with the conjugal assets.

8. Whether the rights of Santos and Joson as innocent buyers at the public auction sale may be prejudiced.

9. Whether the properties levied upon and sold at the public auction solely belong to the judgment debtor.

10. Whether the execution purchasers possess rights higher than the judgment debtor's inchoate proprietary rights.

RULING:

1. Romarico Henson is not estopped from asserting his rights over the properties because the factual background of the case takes it out of the typical situation. There was a separation between Romarico and Katrina, and Romarico believed that he was not involved in his estranged wife's personal dealings. The complaint in Civil Case No. 2224 did not mention or implicate Romarico other than as Katrina's husband.

2. The properties should not be returned to Romarico Henson. The appellate court ruled that the properties were Romarico's exclusive capital bought with his own funds. Even if the properties were considered conjugal, they cannot be held liable for Katrina's obligations as they were incurred without Romarico's consent, were not for family expenses, and did not benefit the family.

3. Romarico Henson was not appropriately represented by Atty. Albino in Civil Case No. 2224. Atty. Albino explicitly appeared as counsel for Katrina Henson and there was no clear manifestation that he was also representing Romarico. Atty. Yumul, who later appeared as counsel, did not expressly manifest that he was representing Romarico. The Power of Attorney presented by Atty. Albino was executed solely by Katrina Henson.

4. Atty. Yumul was not duly authorized to appear on behalf of defendant Romarico Henson. The joint affidavit presented by Atty. Albino during pre-trial was executed solely by defendant Katrina Henson. Therefore, Atty. Yumul cannot be considered as authorized to appear for Romarico Henson.

5. The decision in Civil Case No. 2224 is null and void for failure to observe notice requirements and lack of jurisdiction. Romarico Henson never appeared in the case, and it was impliedly admitted that he was not represented by counsel. There is no laches or finality of decision because Romarico was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

6. The properties involved are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. Although acquired during the marriage, the properties are still considered conjugal unless there is clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise. While Romarico acquired the properties through borrowed money, it is unclear whether he used conjugal assets to repay the loan, which would make the properties conjugal.

7. Katrina Henson's indebtedness cannot be paid with the conjugal assets. The complaint did not allege and prove Romarico's consent and authority for Katrina to incur such indebtedness. Under the Civil Code, a wife may bind the conjugal partnership only under certain circumstances, which were not established in this case.

8. The rights of Santos and Joson as innocent buyers at the public auction sale may not be prejudiced.

9. The properties levied upon and sold at the public auction do not exclusively belong to the judgment debtor.

10. The execution purchasers possess no rights higher than the judgment debtor's inchoate proprietary rights.

PRINCIPLES:

• Estoppel may not be applied against a party who has not been served with a decision and is unaware of its existence.

• Conjugal properties are not liable for obligations incurred by a spouse without the consent of the other spouse, if they are not for family expenses or do not benefit the family.

• Representation of one spouse by counsel does not automatically extend to the other spouse unless clearly manifested.

• The actions of sheriffs in conducting public auctions are presumed to be regular and valid, but irregularities such as non-notification of interested parties may affect the validity of the auction sale.

• A lawyer cannot be considered duly authorized to appear on behalf of a party if the principal counsel of record did not formally appear for that party.

• Failure to observe notice requirements and lack of jurisdiction render a decision null and void.

• Properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise.

• A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only under specific circumstances, such as purchasing things necessary for the support of the family or borrowing money for that purpose in case the husband fails to provide.

• An execution creditor acquires no higher or better right than what the execution debtor has in the property levied upon.

• An execution purchaser generally acquires such estate or interest as was vested in the execution debtor at the time of the seizure on execution.