Case Digest

(a) Family expenses cf.
FC 100 (3), FC 121(5) and FC 94 (1), (4), (5)

Art. 100. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the
regime of absolute community except that: HELD: Yes. RTC should not have ignored that TCT No. 167907 is in the name of
(3) In the absence of sufficient community property, the separate property of both "Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married to Michele U. Francisco." Cleodualdo and
spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present Michele were married on June 12,1986, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code
shall, upon proper petition in a summary proceeding, be given judicial authority to on August 3, 1988. As such, their property relations are governed by the Civil Code
administer or encumber any specific separate property of the other spouse and use on conjugal partnership of gains
the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter's share. (178a) It is clear that both Michele and Cleodualdo have waived their title to and
ownership of the house and lot in Taal St. in favor of petitioners. The property
Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for: should not have been levied and sold at execution sale.
(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon Respondents' bare allegation that petitioners lived with Michele on the leased
the separate property of either spouse; property is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the judgment debt against
Michele and Matrai in the ejectment suit redounded to the benefit of the family of
Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for: Michele and Cleodualdo and petitioners
(1) The support of the spouses, their common children, and legitimate children of A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she purchases things necessary
either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by for the support of the family, or when she borrows money for that purpose upon
the provisions of this Code on Support; her husband's failure to deliver the needed sum; when administration of the
(4) All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major or minor repairs, upon the conjugal partnership is transferred to the wife by the courts or by the husband; or
community property; when the wife gives moderate donations for charity. Considering that the foregoing
circumstances are evidently not present in this case as the liability incurred by
(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during marriage upon the Michele arose from a judgment rendered in an unlawful detainer case against her
separate property of either spouse used by the family; and her partner Matrai.
(6) Francisco v Gonzales, G.R. No. 177667, September 17, 2008 (b) Debts of spouses, Art. 94 (2) and (3)
FACTS: In their desire to manifest their genuine concern for their children, Cleodia Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:
and Ceamantha (P), Cleodualdo and Michele have voluntarily agreed to herein set
forth their obligations, rights and responsibilities on matters relating to their (2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated
children's support, custody, visitation, as well as to the dissolution of their conjugal administrator-spouse for the benefit of the community, or by both spouses, or by
partnership of gains one spouse with the consent of the other;
ownership of the conjugal property consisting of a house and lot shall be
transferred by way of a deed of donation to Cleodia and Ceamantha, as co-owners, (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the
when they reach nineteen (19) and eighteen (18) years old with the following other to the extent that the family may have been benefited;
condition: Cleodualdo shall retain usufructuary rights over the property until he
reaches the age of 65 years old, with the following rights and responsibilities
Respondent ordered Matrai and Michele to vacate the premises leased to them and (c) Subsidiary liabilities, Art. 94 (9)
to pay back rentals, unpaid telephone bill, and attorney's fees (9) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling under paragraph (7)
Real property donated to Cleodia and Ceamantha were used as payment of this Article, the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, and liabilities
CA ruled that since Michele's obligation was not proven to be a personal debt, it incurred by either spouse by reason of a crime or a quasi-delict, in case of absence
must be inferred that it is conjugal and redounded to the benefit of the family, and or insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the payment of
hence, the property may be held answerable for it which shall be considered as advances to be deducted from the share of the debtor-
spouse upon liquidation of the community;
ISSUE: Whether or not the fact that the spouses waived their right of ownership in
favor of their children is valid
(7) Buado vs. CA, G.R. No. 145222, April 24, 2009 contracted by one spouse, unless some advantage or benefit is shown to have
FACTS: On 30 April 1984, Spouses Roberto and Venus Buado (petitioners) filed a accrued to the conjugal partnership. Hence, the filing of a separate action by
complaint for damages against Erlinda Nicol (Erlinda) with Branch 19 of the Regional respondent is proper and jurisdiction is thus vested on Branch 21.Petitioners failed
Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite. Said action originated from Erlinda Nicol’s civil to show that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in
liability arising from the criminal offense of slander filed against her by petitioners. remanding the case to Branch 21 for further proceedings. WHEREFORE, the petition
On 6 April 1987, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Erlinda to pay is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against
damages. Said decision was affirmed, successively, by the Court of Appeals and this petitioners
Court. Finding Erlinda Nicol’s personal properties insufficient to satisfy the
judgment, the Deputy Sheriff issued a notice of levy on real property on execution
addressed to the Register of Deeds of Cavite. Two (2) days before the public auction (d) Sole obligations of a spouse, Art. 94
sale on 28 January 1993, an affidavit of third-party claim from one Arnulfo F. Fulo supra
was received by the deputy sheriff prompting petitioners to put up a sheriff’s
indemnity bond. The auction sale proceeded with petitioners as the highest bidder.
On 4 February 1993, a certificate of sale was issued in favor of petitioners. Almost a (e) Gambling losses, FC 95
year later on 2 February 1994, Romulo Nicol (respondent), the husband of Erlinda Art. 95. Whatever may be lost during the marriage in any game of chance, betting,
Nicol, filed a complaint for annulment of certificate of sale and damages with sweepstakes, or any other kind of gambling, whether permitted or prohibited by
preliminary injunction against petitioners and the deputy sheriff. Respondent, as law, shall be borne by the loser and shall not be charged to the community but any
plaintiff therein, alleged that the defendants, now petitioners, connived and directly winnings therefrom shall form part of the community property. (164a)
levied upon and execute his real property without exhausting the personal
properties of Erlinda Nicol. Respondent averred that there was no proper
publication and posting of the notice of sale. Furthermore, respondent claimed that (f) Other charges, Art. 94
his property which was valued at P500, 000.00 was only sold at a “very low price” of supra
P51, 685.00, whereas the judgment obligation of Erlinda Nicol was only
P40,000.00.Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on 23 August 2000.
Hence, the instant petition attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: WON the wife's criminal liability is chargeable to the conjugal partnership;
WON the husband of the judgment debtor may file an independent action to
protect the conjugal property subject to execution.
HELD: There is no dispute that contested property is conjugal in nature. Article 122
of the Family Code explicitly provides that payment of personal debts contracted by
the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the
conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.
Unlike in the system of absolute community where liabilities incurred by either
spouse by reason of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable to the absolute community
of property, in the absence or insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-
spouse, the same advantage is not accorded in the system of conjugal partnership
of gains. The conjugal partnership of gains has no duty to make advance payments
for the liability of the debtor-spouse. Parenthetically, by no stretch of imagination
can it be concluded that the civil obligation arising from the crime of slander
committed by Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. To
reiterate, conjugal property cannot be held liable for the personal obligation

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(a) Family expenses cf.

FC 100 (3), FC 121(5) and FC 94 (1), (4), (5)

You might also like