You are on page 1of 7

Acp: days to help renew the previous loan of the

spouses
1. Gelano vs Ca - gr no L-39050
February 24, 1981 the bank collected P9,106.00 including
Lessons Applicable: Who are liable after interests by debiting the current account of
dissolution and winding-up? (Corporate the corp.
Law)
Carlos only paid P5,000
FACTS:
Insular Sawmill, Inc. leased the paraphernal Guillermina refused to pay on the ground
property of Guillermina M. Gelano (wife) for that she had no knowledge of such
P1.2K/month accomodation

November 19, 1947-December 26, 1950: May 29, 1959: Insular thru Atty. German
Carlos Gelano (husband) obtained cash Lee, filed a complaint for collection against
advances of P25,950 on account of rentals the spouses before the CFI

agreement: Insular Sawmill, Inc. could In the meantime, private respondent


deduct the same from the monthly rentals amended its Articles of Incorporation to
of the leased premises until the cash shorten its term of existence up to
advances are fully paid December 31, 1960 only

Carlos Gelano was able to pay only November 20, 1964: CFI favored Insular
P5,950.00 thereby leaving an unpaid holding Carlos Gelano liable
balance of P20,000.00 which he refused to
pay August 23, 1973: held spouses jointly ad
severally liable
Guillermina M. Gelano refused to pay on
the ground that said amount was for the ISSUE: W/N a corporation, whose corporate
personal account of her husband asked for life had ceased by the expiration of its term
by, and given to him, without her of existence, could still continue
knowledge and consent and did not benefit prosecuting and defending suits after its
the family dissolution and beyond the period of 3
years provided for under Act No. 1459,
May 4, 1948 to September 11, 1949: otherwise known as the Corporation law, to
Spouses Gelanos purchased lumber wind up its affairs, without having
materials on credit leaving P946.46 unpaid undertaken any step to transfer its assets to
a trustee or assignee.
July 14, 1952: Joseph Tan Yoc Su, as
accomdating party, executed a joint and HELD: YES. Affirmed with mod - conjugal
several promissory note with Carlos Gelano property is liable
in favor of China Banking Corporation bank time during which the corporation, through
in the amount of P8,000.00 payable in 60 its own officers, may conduct the
liquidation of its assets and sue and be sued
as a corporation is limited to 3 years from 2. G tractors inc vs ca - L-57402
the time the period of dissolution G TRACTORS INC VS CA135 SCRA 192
commences; but that there is no time FACTS
limited within which the trustees must
complete a liquidation placed in their hands
Luis Narciso is married to Josefina Narciso.
only the conveyance to the trustees must Heoperates a logging concession,
be made within the 3-year period

effect of the conveyance is to make the Luis Narciso entered into Contract o Hire of
trustees the legal owners of the property heavey Equipment with petitioner G-
conveyed, subject to the beneficial interest Tractorswhere G-tractors leased former
therein of creditors and stockholders tractors. Cotract stipulated payment for
rental. However
trustee may commence a suit which can Luis wasnt able to pay
proceed to final judgment even beyond the .
3-year period

"trustee" = general concept - include the Property of Luis was sold to pay for his
counsel to whom was entrusted in the debt,one of which was conjugal property of
instant case land.

The purpose in the transfer of the assets of


the corporation to a trustee upon its WIFES CONTE
dissolution is more for the protection of its NTIONS:-whatever transpired in the civil
creditor and stockholders case againstthem could be binding only on
the husband LuisR. Narciso and could not
Debtors may not take advantage of the affect or bind theplaintiff-wife Josefina
failure of the corporation to transfer its Salak Narciso who wasnot a party to that
assets to a trustee casethat the nature of the Sheriff's sale
clearlystated that only the property of the
Section 77 of the Corporation Law, when husbandmay be sold to satisfy the money
the corporate existence is terminated in any judgmentagainst himthat the conjugal
legal manner, the corporation shall property of the plaintiffs-spouses could not
nevertheless continue as a body corporate be made liable for thesatisfaction of the
for 3 years after the time when it would judgment in the civilcaseconsidering that
have been dissolved, for the purpose of the subject matter of saidcase was never
prosecuting and defending suits by or used for the benefit of theconjugal
against it partnership or of the familyISSUE

WON the judgment debt of private


respondentLuis R. Narciso is a conjugal debt
for which theconjugal partnership property 3. Francisco vs spouses gonzales 177667
can be heldanswerable?RATIO
FRANCISCO VS GONZALESGR 177667
09.17.08
YES. FACTS
Article 161 of the New Civil Code
providesthat the conjugal partnership shall
be liable for Coz of a Declaration of Nullity of
all the debts and obligations contracted by Marriage,Cleodualdo and Michele have
voluntarily agreed toset forth their
the
obligations, rights and responsibilitieson
husband for the benefit of the
matters relating to their children's
conjugalpartnership, and those contracted
support,custody, visitation, as well as to the
by the wife,also for the same purpose, in
the cases where dissolution of their conjugal partnership of
gains in a compromiseagreement.
she may legally bind the partnership.

Ownership of the conjugal property


consisting of ahouse and lot covered by
There is no doubt then that his account
Transfer Certificate in thename of
withthe petitioner was brought about in
Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married toMichele
order toenhance the productivity of said
U. Francisco shall be transferred by way of a
loggingbusiness, a commercial enterprise
deed of donation to Cleodia and
for gainwhich he had the right to embark
Ceamantha, asco-owners, when they reach
the conjugalpartnership.
nineteen (19) andeighteen (18) years old.

The obligations were contracted in


Respondent ordered Michele and her
connectionwith his legitimate business as a
partnerMatrai to vacate the premises
producer andexporter in mahogany logs
leased to them andto pay back rentals,
and certainlybenefited the conjugal
unpaid telephone bill, andattorney's fees.
partnership.

Real property donated to Cleodia and


The debts contracted by the husband for
Ceamanthawere used as payment.
and inthe exercise of the industry or
profession bywhich he contributes to the
support of thefamily cannot be deemed to
be his exclusiveand private debts. CA DECISION: Michele's obligation was not
provento be a personal debt, it must be
inferred that it isconjugal and redounded to
the benefit of thefamily, and hence, the
property may be heldanswerable for
it.ISSUE
Both Michele and Cleodualdo have waived
theirtitle to and ownership of the house and
WON the conjugal property of the lot inTaal St. in favor of petitioners. The
formerspouses may be held propertyshould not have been levied and
accountable?RATIO sold atexecution sale, for lack of legal basis.

4. Spouses Buado vs CA - 145222


NO. The power of the court in executing
judgments extends only to properties BUADO VS CAGR 145222 02.24.09
unquestionably belonging to the FACTS
judgmentdebtor alone
, in the present case to thosebelonging to Civil case for damages that arose from
Michele and Matrai.*Cleodualdo and slanderfiled by spouses Buado against
Michele married prior to theaffectivity of Erlinda Nicol
the FC thus their property relations
aregoverned by the Civil Code on conjugal
partnershipof gains. RTC ruled that Erlinda is liable and ordered
herto pay for damages, which was affirmed
by CAand SC
A wife may bind the conjugal partnership
onlywhen she-purchases things necessary
for the support of the family- when she court issued writ of execution, directing
borrows money for that purposeupon her thesheriff to collect the indemnification
husband's failure to deliver theneeded sum- fromErlinda
when administration of the
conjugalpartnership is transferred to the
wife by thecourts or by the husband-or Finding Erlindas personal properties
when the wife gives moderate donations insufficient, sheriff deigned to issue a notice
forcharity. of levy on real property on execution,
andthereafter, a notice of sher
iffs sale was issued
In this case as the liability incurred by
Michelearose from a judgment rendered in
an unlawfuldetainer case against her and
her partnerMatrai. Michele, who was then Two days prior to the bidding, a Third Party
already livingseparately from Cleodualdo Claim was received at the sheriffs office
rented the house inLanka Drive for her and from
Matrai's own benefit. Infact, when they one Arnulfo Fulo, prompting spouses Buado
entered into the leaseagreement, Michele to
and Matrai purportedthemselves to be put up a sheriffs indemnity b
husband and wife. ond. Saleproceeded with the spouses Buado
emerging asthe highest bidder
A year after the sale, Romulo Nicol,
husband of Erlinda, filed a complaint for
annulment of certificate of sale and By no stretch of imagination can it
damages with preliminaryinjunction against beconcluded that the civil obligation
petitioners and the deputysheriff, and arisingfrom the crime of slander committed
alleged that the property wasdirectly levied byErlinda redounded to the benefit of
upon without exhausting thepersonal theconjugal partnership.
properties of Erlinda.ISSUE

WON wifes criminal liability is chargeable CPG:


to
the conjugal partnership?RATIO 5. Pnb vs Quintos - L-22383

PNB v. Quintos
NO. G.R. No. 22383 6 October 1924
There is no dispute that contestedproperty J. Villamor Apo
is conjugal in nature. plaintiff-appellee Philippine National
Article 122 of the Family Code Bank
defendants-appellants Margarita
explicitly provides thatpayment of personal Yparraguirre Quintos and Angel A. Ansaldo
debts contracted by thehusband or the wife summary The spouses, defendants
before or during themarriage Quintos and Ansaldo, took out a loan from
shall not be charged to the PNB and pledged varied certificates of stock
conjugalpartnership as security therefor. The pledge, however,
except insofar as they redoundedto the was found insufficient, and the spouses
benefit of the family. failed to give additional securities, so PNB
instituted this case against them. The
spouses argue that their obligation to PNB
is not solidary. The Court, in its initial
Unlike in the system of absolute decision, ruled that the conjugal
communitywhere liabilities incurred by partnership of the spouses is liable for the
either spouse byreason of a crime or quasi- debt. Resolving the spouses MR, the Court
delict expanded its decision by explaining that
only the account of benefits pertains to the
is chargeableto the absolute community of conjugal partnership. The capital account,
property, in theabsence or insufficiency of or the properties of the spouses before
the exclusiveproperty of the debtor-spouse, marriage, remains their separate
the sameadvantage is not accorded in the properties. There is no presumption of
system of conjugal partnership of gains. solidarity as to the spouses separate
The conjugalpartnership of gains has no properties. Therefore, in default of the
duty to makeadvance payments for the conjugal partnership, the spouses are jointly
liability of thedebtor-spouse.
liable for the debt with their separate (1) [Resolved in decision] Whether the
properties. spouses executed the contract of pledge as
husband and wife.IMMATERIAL. Since the
defendants are husband and wife, and the
facts of the case debt was contracted during their marriage,
Defendants Ansaldo and Quintos, husband it must be paid from the conjugal
and wife, took out a loan amounting to partnership.
P31,284 from plaintiff PNB, and as security, (2) [Resolved in resolution on
mortgaged and pledged to PNB the defendants motion for reconsideration]
following: Whether in default of the conjugal
(1) Shares of stock of the Bank of partnership, the spouses may be held liable
Philippine Islands; with their separate property.YES. If the
(2) Shares of stock of the Compania properties of the conjugal partnership are
Naviera; insufficient, the spouses are jointly liable for
(3) Shares of stock of the Compania the debt with their separate property.
Mercantir; and
(4) Shares of stock of the Davao ratio
Agriculture and Commercial Company. (1) The conjugal partnership is liable for the
The bank later made several demands upon debt, in default of the pledged property.
the spouses to pay the debt, because the The Court held that it could not alter the
securities were found insufficient. However, lower courts findings that, first, the
they defaulted and failed to give additional defendants were husband and wife, and
securities demanded. PNB thus instituted second, the debt with PNB was contracted
the instant complaint against the spouses. during their marriage. Hence, the conjugal
The defendants maintain that their partnership of the spouses is liable for the
obligation to PNB is not solidary, since there debt. This was the essence of the decision.
is nothing in the agreement that expressly Resolving, however, the spouses motion
states that it is solidary in character. They for reconsideration, the Court expanded
thus argue that the debt is binding upon upon its ruling by discussing the nature of
them only to the extent that it has the conjugal partnership. The conjugal
benefited them individually. In this vein, partnership consists of the following
Quintos alleged that she only received properties, as per Art. 1401 of the Civil
P10,000 of the amount borrowed. Code:
The lower court held that it is not necessary (a) Those acquired by onerous title
to determine whether the obligation is during the marriage at the expense of the
solidary or joint, because the debt is, common property whether the acquisition
ultimately, chargeable to the defendant is made for the community or for only one
spouses conjugal partnership. The of them;
defendants were consequently held liable (b) Those obtained by the industry,
to PNB for the full amount of the loan, plus salary or labor of the spouses or any of
interest. them; and
(c) The fruits, rents or interest received
issues or accruing during the marriage, from the
common or the private property of each of
the spouses.
However, the Court emphasized that the
partnership does not make a merger of
each spouses properties. Notwithstanding
the partnership, they each continue to be
the owner of what they each had before
contracting marriage. The capital account
remains the separate property of the
spouses; it is the account of benefits that
pertains to the conjugal partnership. This
means that there can be no presumption of
solidarity with regard to the spouses
separate property.

(2) The separate property of the spouses


may be charged jointly with the debt, in
case the pledged property and the conjugal
partnership both are in default.
If the pledged property and the conjugal
partnership are both in default, then it is
the spouses separate property that should
be liable. However, since solidarity is not
presumed with regard to such property,
their individual liability cannot extend
beyond the interest that they each may
have in the debt, proportional to their
share. In conclusion, since the pledged
properties in this case are insufficient, the
conjugal partnership is liable for the debt. In
default of the partnership, however, the
spouses are jointly liable for the debt.
The judgment is modified in this regard, but
the spouses MR is denied.

6. Estate de Padilla vs De padilla - L-48137

7. Muoz vs Ramirez - 156125

8. Laperal vs katigbak 16991