Carlos v. Abelardo (2002)

Carlos vs. Abelardo

GR No. 146504 | April 9, 2002

Ponente: Justice Kapunan

Facts:

On October 1989, herein respondent Manuel Abelardo and his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo approached herein petitioner Honorio Carlos to borrow $25,000 for purchase of house and lot at Paranaque. Manuel is the son-in-law of Honorio. As a result, a check was then issued by Honorio to Pura Vallejo, seller of the subject house and lot, as full payment. On July 1991, Honorio inquired the status of the loan he extended to the spouses. Manuel acknowledged their obligation but pleaded that they are not yet in a position to make a definite settlement. However, Manuel showed violent resistance to the inquiries of Honorio, even making death threats to the latter. On August 24, 1994, Honorio made a formal demand for the payment of the loan but the spouses failed to comply with such demand. On October 13, 1994, Honorio then filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against the spouses before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. This includes collection of the principal of the loan, legal interests from the date of formal demand, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of the suit.

Being separated in fact for more than a year prior to the filing of the complaint, Manuel and Maria Theresa filed separate answers to the complaint of Honorio. Maria Theresa admitted securing the loan, but she believed the loan was payable on a staggered basis. Manuel was asked to sign and acknowledge On the other hand, Manuel admitted receiving the $25,000 amount but it is because of his share from the profits earned by HL Carlos Construction, in which he works for. Manuel also denied having made death threats to Honorio and by way of counterclaim, he asked for moral damages from Honorio for causing the alienation of his wife’s love and affection, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

On June 26 1996, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Carlos, ordering Abelardo to pay the $25,000, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and the costs of suit. Abelardo appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court due to insufficiency of evidence to show that the subject amount was indeed a loan made by Manuel. Honorio filed for a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the appellate court.

Issues:

W/N the loan obtained to purchase the conjugal dwelling can be charged against the conjugal partnership.

Held:

The Supreme Court granted the petition of Carlos. The decision of the appellate court is modified.

In pursuant to Article 121 of the Family Code, the loan is the liability of the conjugal partnership. While Abelardo did not and refused to sign the acknowledgment executed and signed by his wife, undoubtedly, the loan redounded to the benefit of the family because it was used to purchase the house and lot which became the conjugal home of respondent and his family. Hence, notwithstanding the alleged lack of consent of respondent, under Article 21 of the Family Code, he shall be solidarily liable for such loan together with his wife.

The loan Yes, as it has redounded to the benefit of the family.  They did not deny that the same served as their conjugal home thus benefiting the family.  Hence, the spouses are jointly and severally liable in the payment of the loan.  Abelardo’s contention that it is not a loan rather a profit share in the construction firm is untenable since there was no proof that he was part of the stockholders that will entitle him to the profits and income of the company.

Hence, the petition was granted and Abelardo is ordered to pay the petitioner in the amount of $25,000 plus legal interest including moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Sunga v. CA & Chua (2008)

Lilibeth Sunga-Chan and Cecilia Sunga vs. The Court of Apeals and Lamberto Chua

G.R. No. 154401

June 25, 2008

Ponente: Velasco, Jr. J.

Facts

·       Lamberto Chua (respondents) and Jacinto Sunga, husband of Cecilia Sunga (petitioner), formed a partnership to engage in the marketing of liquefied petroleum gas in 1977, which was named Shellite that was registered as a sole proprietorship in the name of Jacinto. Lilibeth Sunga-Chan and Cecilia Sunga continued the business when Jacinto Sunga died in 1989, without Chua’s consent. Subsequently, Chua repeatedly demanded for accounting but was ignored which prompted him to file a Complaint for Winding Up of a Partnership Affairs, Accounting, Appraisal, and Recovery of Shares and Damages with a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. The RTC ruled in favor of Chua and ordered Lilibeth Sunga-Chan and Cecilia Sunga to render an accounting and return all assets, income and profits, and to pay several sums of money. The same court issued a writ of execution while Chua asked the court to admit the accounting report prepared by CPA. The accounting report came up with P8,733,644.75 as Chua’s claim and was approved by the trial court as the final computation and the liability of petitioners. The petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but was denied for lack of merit. Due to the petitioner’s failure to appear the hearings, they were deemed to have waived the right to object the claim. The Sheriff of Manila levied the property of Lilibeth Sunga-Chan which was auctioned to Lamberto Chua for P8 million. However, petitioner Sunga-Chan argues that such property forms part of a conjugal partnership between his husband and cannot be held liable.

Issue:

·       W/N the absolute community of property of spouses Lilibeth Sunga-Chan and Norberto Chan may be lawfully made to answer Lilibeth Sunga-Chan’s liability

Held

“WHEREFORE, this petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed decision and resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 75688 are hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) The Resolutions dated November 6, 2002 and January 7, 2003 of the RTC, Branch 11 in Sindangan, Zamboanga Del Norte in Civil Case No. S-494, as effectively upheld by the CA, are AFFIRMED with the modification that the approved claim of respondent Chua is hereby corrected and adjusted to cover only the aggregate amount of PhP 5,529,392.52;

(2) Subject to the payment by respondent Chua of PhP 2,470,607.48 to petitioner Sunga-Chan, the Resolution dated April 11, 2005 of the RTC, confirming the sheriff’s final deed of sale of the levied property, ordering the Registry of Deeds of Manila to cancel TCT No. 208782, and issuing a writ of possession in favor of respondent Chua, is AFFIRMED; and The TRO issued by the Court on May 31, 2005 in the instant petition is LIFTED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.”

Ratio:

·       YES. The fact that the levied parcel of land is a conjugal property of the spouses Chan does not vitiate the levy an the sale of property, per se. The property is not among those exepted from execution under the rules of Court.  The property levied by the Sheriff may be held liable for the liabilities of Lilibeth Sunga-Chan as the same is a part of absolute community property. The use of the assets of Shellite may be reasonably considered to have been used for Lilibeth Sunga-Chan and Norberto Chan’s benefit. The property was auctioned for a price of P8 million by Chua but the claim of Chua only amounts to P5,529,392.52 which means that Lamberto Chua owes Lilibeth Sunga-Chan the excess amount of P2,470,607.48.

Mariano v. CA & Sanchez (1989)

MARIANO v. CA and SANCHEZ

GR No. 51283

June 7, 1989

Ponente: Justice Narvasa

FACTS:

Esther Sanchez filed a suit for recovery of the value of ladies’ ready-made dresses against Lourdes Mariano with the Court of First Instance (Caloocan city).  A writ of preliminary attachment was issued at Sanchez’s instance and resulted in the seizure of Mariano’s property worth P15,000 or so. Mariano then elevated her case to the Court of Appeals after her motion for discharge of the attachment was denied. The CA ordered the Trial Court to receive evidence on whether or not the attachment had been improvidently or irregularly issued, to which the trial court found that it had indeed been improperly issued and consequently dissolved it. Mariano sought award for damages resulting from the wrongful attachment. The judgment was rendered in favor of Mariano and ordered Sanchez to pay Mariano loss of income, the value of attached goods, moral and exemplary damages and costs of suit. Esther’s husband, Daniel, the administrator of the conjugal partnership, filed a complaint for annulment of the execution in the Court of First Instance at Quezon City alleging that the conjugal assets could not be validly made to answer for the obligations exclusively contracted by his wife. Pending hearing, the Court commanded the sheriff to desist from proceeding with the auction sale of the property subject of Sanchez’s claim.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the conjugal partnership of Daniel and Esther could not be made liable for Esther’s judgment obligation arising from the spouses’ joint business with Mariano.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

- YES. The Court finds that it has been established that the profits from the business had been used to meet he expenses for the support of Esther’s family, as expressly acknowledged by Esther herself and has never been denied by Daniel. Consequently, the conjugal partnership of Esther and Daniel is liable for the debts and obligations contracted by Esther since the income derived therefrom had redounded to the benefit of the partnership. This is evident since the said income has been used to defray some of the expenses for the maintenance of the family and education of the children.

JUDGMENT:

Decision of the CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.