Scribd
Upload
765 views1 page

PNB Vs Quintos

The Philippine National Bank filed a complaint against Margarita Quintos E Yparraguirre and Angel A. Ansalso requiring them to pay a debt of P31,284 that they had incurred jointly in 1918. The Supreme Court ruled that the conjugal partnership property of the defendants should be used first to pay the debt, as debts incurred during marriage are chargeable to the conjugal partnership according to law. If the conjugal partnership property was insufficient, then the defendants would be jointly liable for any remaining amount owed. The Court affirmed that only properties acquired during the marriage are part of the conjugal partnership, not any private properties owned prior to the marriage.

Uploaded by

Angela De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
765 views1 page

PNB Vs Quintos

The Philippine National Bank filed a complaint against Margarita Quintos E Yparraguirre and Angel A. Ansalso requiring them to pay a debt of P31,284 that they had incurred jointly in 1918. The Supreme Court ruled that the conjugal partnership property of the defendants should be used first to pay the debt, as debts incurred during marriage are chargeable to the conjugal partnership according to law. If the conjugal partnership property was insufficient, then the defendants would be jointly liable for any remaining amount owed. The Court affirmed that only properties acquired during the marriage are part of the conjugal partnership, not any private properties owned prior to the marriage.

Uploaded by

Angela De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Philippine National Bank vs. Margarita Quintos E Yparraguirre and Angel A.

Ansalso

Facts:
 On June 20, 1918 PNB granted the defendants a credit to the amount of P31,284 to which
defendants mortgaged stocks from BPI, Compañia Naviera, Davao Agriculture and
Commercial Company etc.
 In the document, it did not clearly show that they were husband and wife, except in their civil
statuses.
 On April 2, 1921/ July 22, 1921 a complaint was filed requiring Mr. Ansalso to pay his debt.

SC 1st TRIAL:
 Defendants claim that their debt is not of a solidary nature and should thus only bind one to
the extent of their share in the obligation thus should not be charged to their conjugal
partnership.

 However Art 1408 of NCC provides that all debts incurred by both husband and wife during
the marriage are chargeable to the conjugal partnership thus Margarita, the wife, is part of
the obligation as her husband as the legal manager of the conjugal partnership is liable for the
debt.

 Supreme Court first decision held that conjugal partnership should be used to pay for the debt
incurred as well as private property of each of them since they are both obligated.

SC 2nd TRIAL (DECISION UPON MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION)


 Reasserts that conjugal property is liable for the debt they incurred as husband and wife.
 Conjugal partnership – begins existing at celebration of marriage
 Confined to properties stated in Art 1401 of CC –
(a) Those acquired by onerous (heavy obligations) title during the
marriage at the expense of the common property whether the acquisition is made for the community
or for only one of them;
(b) those obtained by the industry, salary or labor of the spouses or
any of them;
(c) the fruits, rents or interest received or accruing during the
marriage, from the common or the private property of each of the spouses.
 Conjugal partnership DOES NOT merge the properties they acquired before. The
rest of the property that the spouse acquired before their marriage is separate from
the conjugal partnership.
 Guaranteed by absolute separation of capitals.

ISSUE:

w/n they are jointly liable for the debts incurred through conjugal partnership

HELD:

Under New Civil Code 1698 it states that partners are not solidarily liable with respect to the debt
of the partnership; New Civil Code 1137 that solidarity will exist only when it is expressly
determined. Meaning, partner cannot be solidarity liable for the debts of the partnership, because there
is no legal provision imposing such burden up on one.
And it is now held that properties of the conjugal partnership of the defendants are liable for the debt
to the plaintiff, and in default thereof, they are jointly liable for the payment thereof. It is being
understood that the judgment appealed from is modified in the sense above stated and the motion of
the appellants is denied.

Angela

You might also like