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.