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.