Paquetes para gestión de cortafuegos iptables en las

FACTS:

 Florentino Collantes, husband of Petrona Javier, became indebted to the estate of Tomas Osmena

 Sheriff executed judgment of debt by selling at public auction all the right, title, interest or share which the Collates had or might have in 2 parcels of improved real estate and especially the usufructuary interest therein of Pascuala Santos, the surviving widow of Felix Javier, which interest was acquired by Petrona Javier (wife)

o Land inherited by Petrona from her parents

o Usufructuary right acquired from Petrona‘s father‘s 2nd

wife for the sum of P3,000 (amount was borrowed giving as security for the loan an mortgage on the property she had inherited)

 Successful bidder: Osmena estate

 Petrona Javier claimed that Collantes had no rights in said properties or in the usufructuary interest  filed for annulment of sale

 Osmena estate: admitted exclusive right of ownership; claimed that the money which which said usufructuary interest was

purchased belonged to the conjugal partnership and therefore the right of usufruct belonged to said conjugal partnership

 CFI: annulled only the sale of 2 properties ISSUE: WON fruits of paraphernal property should be used to pay off the debt incurred by the husband HELD: YES

- Art 1401 of Civil Code – fruits, revenue, or interest collected during marriage coming from partnership property of from that which belongs to either of the spouses is community property

o Thus fruits of paraphernal property form part of assets of conjugal partnership and are liable for payment of marriage expenses - Wife manages paraphernal property but the

fruits of such are managed by the husband as the administrator of conjugal property. Debt he incurred in this case was to meet the obligations of the conjugal partnership and were for the benefit of the family in his exercise of profession or industry. Thus conjugal partnership can be used to pay it off

Vda. De Sta. Romana v. PCIB 118 SCRA 330 FACTS:

 PCIB – Administrator of the estate of the deceased C.N. Hodges

 PCIB filed for the recovery of a parcel of land (Lot 1258-G) purchased by Ramon Sta. Romana from C.N. Hodges

 Sheriff levied on the rights and interests of Ramon Sta. Romana over Lot 1258-F and improvements, also purchased from C.N. Hodges

 Third party claim was filed by Emilio Sta. Romana who claimed that Lot 1258-F and its improvements had been sold to him

 RTC: rescinded Contract and ordered return of possession of Lot 1258-G

 CA affirmed decision

 Trial judge issued a writ of execution  Sheriff issued a notice of sale at public auction of the rights and interests of Ramon Sta. Romana over over Lot 1258-F

 Ramon Romana died intestate

 Petitioner Socorro L. Vda. De Sta. Romana, surviving spouse, filed a motion to quest the writ of execution

 Petitioner prayed that the writ of execution and levy on execution made on Lot 1258-F and the improvements existing theron be annulled insofar as her ½ share in the said properties

 Respondent moved to dismiss on ground of res judicata

 CFI: granted motion to dismiss

ISSUE: WON wife should get ½ of property of husband who died when the land in question is used to pay off debt

HELD: NO

- As long as conjugal partnership subsists, there can be no ½ share of husband or wife. Only when conjugal partnership is dissolved between husband and wife can they claim it. Any levy on conjugal partnership property to satisty monety judgment against husband is null and void

- in this case, the auction was made before the conjugal property was dissolved thus wife can‘t claim it. Also showed that the debt was for the benefit of the conjugal partnership

non-inclusion of wife in suit to enforce obligation is immaterial. Need not be joined by wife in suit against conjugal partnership (section 4, rule 3of rules of court and Art 113 of CC)

G-Tractors v. CA (supra) DBP v. Adil 161 SCRA 307 FACTS:

 Spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte obtained an agricultural loan from the DBP in the sum of P2,000.00 in a promissory note whereby they bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the account in ten (10) equal yearly amortizations

 Obligation remained outstanding and unpaid

 Confesor, who was by then a member of the Congress of the Philippines, executed a second promissory note on April 11, 1961 expressly acknowledging said loan and promising to pay the same on or before June 15, 1961

 Defaulted in payment  DBP filed complaint

 Inferior court ordered payment

 CFI of Iloilo reversed order

Issue: WON conjugal partnership may be used to pay debt in promissory note when husband was the only one who signed it

HELD: YES

- Article 165 of the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. All debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, are chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

in this case, respondent Confesor signed the second promissory note for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Hence the conjugal partnership is liable for this obligation.

Mariano v. CA (supra)

Wong et al. v. CA (supra) 200 SCRA 792 Ong V. CA (supra) 204 SCRA 297

Ayala Investment vs. CA (February 12, 1998) Facts:

16) ℗ assails the CA decision affirming the RTC decision holding the Conjugal partnership of я Ching not liable for the debt‘s incurred.

17) Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) takes a P50,300,000 loan from ℗ AIDC, я Ching

EVP in said company executes security agreements for the loan.

18) PBM fails to pay the loan and ℗AIDC sues 19) CFI holds PBM and я Ching jointly and

severally liable to pay.

20) Pending appeal CFI issues Writ of execution upon the putting up of a P8m bond.

21) The sheriff poses a notice of sale on 3 of я Ching‘s conjugal properties.

22) Я files injunction on ℗ with CFI arguing subject loan did not redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

23) CFI rules for я issues TRO on auction and sale.

24) ℗ petitions for certiorari w/ the CA, CA issues TRO on the CFI decision.

25) Auction of the properties takes place and are sold to ℗AIDC who are the only bidders. Certificate of sale is issued and the redemption period expires w/o being claimed by я.

26) In the meantime while the CA decided that CFI decision w/ TRO be set aside, the Civil Case should push through.

27) ℗ AIDC motions to dismiss the case for being moot and academic w/ the consummation of the sale. DENIED by CFI.

28) TC declares the sale on execution null and void. ℗ appeal DENIED.

29) ℗ appealed to CA. DENIED agreeing with the я contention that PBM rather than the conjugal partnership of я Ching was benefitted by the loan. (FC ART 121 Par. 2) moreover the burden of proof of the fact that the conjugal partnership benefitted in this case lies with the creditor party (℗AIDC) who did not prove this fact of beneficience sufficiently.

30) On appeal ℗ argue that there is no need to prove the benefit since the mere nature of

the transaction is sufficient to prove liability of a party.

Issues:

WON a surety agreement entered into by the husband in favor of his employer incurs civil liability on the conjugal partnership of the former.

Held: NOT NECESSARILY, given that the agreement was entered in to not primarily to benefit of the family of the husband it cannot be said that his conjugal partnership is automatically liable, in any case the burden of proof to confirm the benefit and subsequently the liability of the conjugal property rests with the debtor who in this case did not sufficiently prove the said fact.

- Art 121 of FC shows that conjugal partnership shall be liable for all debts and obligations contracted during marriage by the designated admin-spouse for benefit of conjugal partnership of gains

o Read together with Art 161 where benefit is understood to not actually accrue but to be the reason for the admin-spouse to enter into such a deal

o Difference between one where husband contracted obligation for his own business that is for benefit of his family and where the husband merely acted as surety ofr loan contracted by another for the latter‘ business (MAIN reason for obligation is not for family)

Benefits contemplated in Art 121 is one resulting directly from the loan and not just a by-product of it which the latter example is.

Security Bank vs Mar Tiera Corp G R No 143382, Nov 29, 2006 Facts:

- May 7, 1980 – respondent Mar Tiera Corp, through Pres, Wilfredo Martinez applied for credit accommodation with petitioner Security Bank and Trust Company. It was secured with an indemnity agreement made by Wilfredo Martinez et al.

- 1994- however business failed and they weren‘t able to pay Security Bank who then filed in RTC-Makati a writ of attachment on all real and personal properties of Respondent Corporation and respondent Martinez. Part of this property was the conjugal house and lot of Wilfrido and Josefina Martinez

- Luckily, RTC and CA found that the obligation contracted by Martinez did not redound to the benefit of his family, thus they

ordered the lifting of the attachment on the conjugal house and lot of the spouses. ISSUE: WON conjugal partnership may be held liable for an indemnity agreement enters into by husband for a 3rd party

HELD: NO

- Art 161 of CC – conjugal partnership is liable for all debts and obligations contracted by husband for the BENEFIT of the conjugal partnership.

o To protect solidarity and well-being of family as a unit thus limiting the liability of conjugal partnership. - Acting as a surety for the benefit of another

person or entity and not the family is not part of the debts and obligations under Art 161 since it is for the benefit of the principal debtor and not the surety or his family.

Only when one contracts it as the principal obligor in the contract and is the direct recipient of the money

and services can Art 161 apply

Ramones vs Agbayani 137808, Sept 30, 2005 Facts:

- May 23, 1979 – Santos Ramones, without knowledge of his wife Aldegonda Ramones, sold part of the lot that is part of their conjugal property to Aurora Agbayani - March 7, 1980 – Santos Ramones died and

afterwards Aldegonda built a septic tank and restroom in the land that was sold to Agbayani. Thus Agbayani filed a complaint - RTC: ruled that Deed of Sale is void since it

was without the consent of Aldegonda - CA: reversed RTC ruling since while Art 166

prohibits the selling of property by the husband without the consent of his wife, the

wife may only question such transaction within 10 years and have it annulled as found in Art 173 of CC. Aldegonda did no such action.

ISSUE: WON sale of real property belonging to conjugal partnership of husband without his wife‘s consent is void.

HELD: NO

- Art 166 read with Art 173 merely makes it voidable.

FC cannot be retroactively applied so Civil Code is law that governs. Deed of Sale was also governed under CC.

Luzon Surety v De Garcia (supra) BA Finance v CA

161 SCRA 608 Facts:

- May – Augusto abandoned his wife and children

- July 1, 1975 – Augusto Yulo secured loan from BA finance corp as evidenced by a promissory note he signed in own behalf and as representative of A&L industries which is managed by his wife, Lily Rulo whom he said gave him authority to procure loan and sign the promissory note.

- Augusto failed to pay loan. Thus BA Finance filed a complaint against the spouses.

- Lily Yulo contended thought that they were already separated when promissory note was executed, that her signature was forged, and she was the sole proprietor of A&L and never gave Augusto any authority to sign the

promissory note and said business already closed.

- Both TC and CA dismissed petitioner‘s complaint and ordered them to pay Lily damages.

ISSUE: WON A&L can be made answerable for obligations since it is part of the conjugal partnership of spouses

HELD: NO

- While A&L is part of conjugal property, it can‘t be made liable since the obligation contracted by Augusto is not for the benefit of the conjugal partnerships (Art 161 of CC)

o Evidenced by his abandonment two months prior to when he contracted the promissory note.

Made it appear that wife gave him authority to procure such loan.

Costuna vs. Domondon 180 SCRA 333 Sps. Amadeo and Estela Costuna bought 3 parcels of

land during their marriage and registered the same in the name of Amadeo. Amadeo was later hospitalized (on different dates) for 3rd degree burns on his legs. While already ill due to old age, he went to his relatives in Samar to settle his property documents. Because of his failure to return, Estela refused to give her consent to the action of partition of their conjugal partnership and the deed of sale allegedly filed by

Amadeo in Samar for the purpose of financing his medical needs. Hence, Amadeo executed the mentioned deed of sale, which sold his ½ indeterminate share on the 3-parcel property, in favour of Laureana Domondon. When Amadeo died, Estela sought the execution of Amadeo‘s will, executed prior to his trip to Samar, which named her as sole. Laureana opposed the motion, claimed her ½

share in the property and sought to have Estela give consent to the deed of sale.

CA:

- husband may not sell real estate without consent unless (1) sale of personal properties (2) real properties acquired before NCC (3) real properties acquired after NCC but wife is in a leprosarium, declared spendthrift or under civil interdiction, (4) purpose is to pay conjugal liabilities (5) purpose is to secure future of children or finishing a career.

- Support of spouse by conjugal property is not relieved when they do not live on the same roof.

ISSUE:

- (1) WON deed of sale should be nullified since it waas without the consent of the wife - (2) WON conjugal partnership should be

made liable for payment of hospital and

medical expenses of Amadeo who allegedly abandoned conjugal home and wife

HELD: (1) NO

- Amadeo sought the petitoner‘s consent but petitioner withheld it. However when deed of sale was made, she did nothing to impugn it and assailed it for the first time when Respondent filed a case in RTC-QC. - Amadeo only sold his ½ share of community

property. Her share in the property is intact. - When consent is unreasonably withheld, one

should consider law as falling within the recognized exceptions

- (2) YES

it falls under the obligations protected by Art 161 of CC since it gives a discernible advantage or good to the conjugal partnership, directly or indirectly. Health would obviously benefit their conjugal partnership

Carlos vs. Abelardo 380 SCRA 361 On Oct. 31, 1989, Honorio Carlos issued a check

worth $25k, in the name of Pura Vallejo, against his personal account in Banker‘s Trust. It was allegedly a loan to his daughter Maria Theresa and her husband Manuel Abelardo for the purchadse of a house and lot from Vallejo in order to help them in their married life. Vallejo issued an acknowledgement receipt. The failure of the spouses to pay led Honorio to formally demand the payment. Maria Theresa acknowledged their debt to her father but claimed that it was payable on a staggered basis. Despite this acknowledgement and the evidence of Honorio‘s Bank‘s Trust Check (the one paid to Vallejo) and his formal demand, Manuel denied the nature of the money as a loan. He claimed, instead, that the amount given was his share in income from Honorio‘s business, H. L. Carlos Construction. He even presented 10 BPI checks against the account of HLCC to prove that he had been receiving profit from HLCC. However, he is not included in HLCC‘s Articles of Incorporation or Organizational Profile as stockholder, officer, employee, or agent. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that a check of $25k had been issued to Vallejo against

the personal account of Honorio and that the same was received by the spouses and given to Vallejo for payment of a house and lot that became their conjugal dwelling.

- ISSUE: WON conjugal property should pay for the loan of 25, 000 even when acknowledgement was not signed by husband

- HELD: YES

- Art 121 of FCC – conjugal partnership is liable for (1) debts and obligations that benefit the conjugal partnership of gains made by both the spouses or one of them but with the consent of the other (2) debts and obligations that are without consent f one of the spouse but their family has benefited

Evidence here shows that family did benefit since they used the loan to buy the house which became their conjugal home.

FC122

People v. Lagrimas