Javier v. Osmeña (1916)

Petrona JAVIER v. Lazaro OSMENA (as administrator of the estate of the deceased Tomas Osmena)

GR No. 9984

March 23, 1916

Ponente: Chief Justice Arellano

FACTS:

Florentino Collantes, husband of Petrona Javier (petitioner) became indebted to the estate of Tomas Osmena in the sum of P26M. A judgment for this amount was rendered in behalf of the estate and the sheriff executed it by selling at public auction the right, title, interest or share which the judgment debtor, Collantes, had or might have in two parcels of improved real estate situated in Manila. Herein petitioner is the only daughter of Felix Javier, who inherited two urban properties situated on Calle Carriedo and on Calle San Sebastian, upon the latter’s death. These said properties were those levied upon by the sheriff in the execution judgment against Collantes. During the sale, the successful bidder is the Osmena estate itself which paid P500 for each parcel of property. Petrona Javier filed a claim of intervention in order to recover her ownership of the properties, contending that her husband had no rights to two pieces of property. The defendant, on the other hand, prayed that the court render a judgment holding that said revenues of both properties be made liable for the payment of the judgment debt. The Court of First Instance (Manila) rendered judgment annulling only the sale of the two properties, which prompted the petitioner to appeal.

ISSUE/S:

- W/N the sum owed by the Collantes to the Osmena estate can and should be paid out of the fruits and revenues of the two aforementioned parcels of real estate that exclusively belonged to Petrona Javier (wife).

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

- Yes. The Court finds it decisive and conclusive that the debt must be paid out of the community property of the marriage under Article 1408 of the Civil Code which enumerates the instances where the conjugal partnership may be held liable for.  

- The court holds that the fruits and revenue from the two properties belonging to the wife, described in the judgment appealed from, are liable for the payment of the debt owing by the husband, the judgment debtor.

- In this case, the wife has given no cause for being deprived, nor has any reason whatever been advanced for depriving her, of her right to manage her own property. The same may be said of the husband with respect to the community property of the marriage.

- The Court finds no reason to change the present status of affairs.

JUDGMENT:

- The judgment is REVERSED. The Court holds that the fruits and revenue from the two properties belonging to the wife are liable for the payment of the debt owing by the husband.