Protección de ejecutables mediante Hardening-Wrapper

Facts:

- Upon the express guarantee of the Fidelity and Surety Company of the Philippine Islands, the Philippine Trust Company granted Agcaoili a credit in current account not to exceed 20,000.

- Angel Ansaldo in turn agreed to indemnify Fidelity and Surety Company for any losses and damages from the obligations of Agacaoili to PTC.

- Agcaoili defaulted hence FSC brought an action against Ansaldo for the recovery of 19K, and caused the sheriff to levy on the joint savings account of Ansaldo and his wife.

- Ansaldo said that they levied on a conjugal property, hence not liable to Ansaldo‘s personal obligations.

- Ansaldo filed action in CFI to declare it null and void. It was granted by CFI.

Issues: WON joint savings account is liable for the payment of the personal obligations of the husband. Held: No.

Ratio: It must be proven that the fruits of the paraphernal property benefited the family to prove that it is conjugal. In this case, there was no effort to prove that the obligations contracted benefited the family of Ansaldo.

Sps. Estonina v. CA G.R. No. 111547, Jan. 27, 1997 Facts:

- Lot C is owned by Santiago Garcia who died on October 2, 1967

- In 1973, Trinidad Estonina was granted the land TCT No. 1975 by CFI. It was also mentioned there that Trinidad covered all rights that Consuela Garcia may have. - Children of the first wife, Adela, executed a

sale transferring unto Atayan spouses 4/10 of their share in the land TCT T-82229. - Children of the 2nd wife, Consuelo Garcia,

also sold 4/10 of the land to the Atayan spouses.

- Estrella Garcia (the widow of his son) also sold 1/10 to Spouses Atayan.

- Estonina then bought the land in a public auction which was opposed by Consuelo Garcia.

- TCT 82229 was cancelled and T-99961 was issued in favor of Trinidad Estonina.

- Spouses Atayan pleaded that the auction be declared null and void.

- RTC rendered a decision that the said land was gained by Consuelo and Santiago during the marriage, hence presumed to be conjugal.

- CA however said it was not conjugal. Issues: WON the said land is conjugal property Held: No.

Ratio: It was acquired during the marriage hence it is presumed to be conjugal (Santiago and Consuelo). However, the petitioners failed to prove that the property in question was gained during the marriage of Consuelo and Santiago. Registration and acquisition are different. So, only 1/10 could be given to Consuelo. FC, FC 107 cf. FC 88 FC 105(2) of FC 256 Castro vs. Miat 397 SCRA 271 Facts:

- Moises and Miat bought 2 parcels of land (one in Pque and one in Paco)

- Moises then wanted the Paranaque property to himself but would leave the 2 properties to his sons.

- Moises and Concordia bought the property on installment basis on 1977, and it was only on 1984 it was finished.

- Alexander agreed to sell the said lot to Romeo.

- However, Romeo found out that the property was sold to Castro by Moises.

- Moises bought the property through mortgage from Castro

- Alexander received 2/3, Moises 1/3, Romeo NONE

- CA rendered a decision nullifying deed of sale between Moises and Castro and ordered them to reconvey the land to Romeo for 36K

Issues: WON the Paco property is the capital property of Moises.

Held: No

Ratio: It is conjugal share. Since it was acquired through join funds. Moises and Concordia bought the property during the marriage. There was even a letter from Moises to Romeo conveying the land. Moreover, Castro is not a buyer in good faith. Since they knew that there was an adverse claim.

FC 105 of FC 74-74 Malang vs Moson 338 SCRA 393

FC 108 cf. NCC 1767-1768

46 Phil 370 Facts:

- June 20, 1918 - PNB granted the defendants a credit to the amount of P31, 284 to which defendants mortgaged stocks from BPI, Compañia Naviera, Davao Agriculture and Commercial Company etc.

o In the document, it did not clearly show that they were husband and wife, except in their civil statues o Does not show that they bound

themselves solidarily to the debt incurred.

- April 2, 1921/ July 22, 1921 – complaint was filed requiring Mr. Ansaldo to pay his debt. SC First TRIAL

- Defendants claim that their debt is not of a solidary nature and should thus only bind one to the extent of their share in the obligation thus should not be charged to their conjugal partnership.

o However Art 1408 of NCC provides – all debts incurred by both husband and wife during the marriage are chargeable to the conjugal partnership thus Margarita Ansaido, the wife, is part of the obligation as her husband as the legal manager of the conjugal partnership is liable for the debt. o SC first decision: conjugal

partnership should be used to pay for the debt incurred as well as private property of each of them since they are both obligated SC 2nd TRIAL (DECISION UPON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)

- Reasserts that conjugal property is liable for the debt they incurred as husband and wife.

o Conjugal partnership – begins existing at celebration of marriage

 Confined to properties stated in Art 1401 of CC -

(a) Those acquired by onerous (heavy obligations) title during the marriage at the expense of the common property whether the acquisition is made for the community or for only one of them; (b) those obtained by the industry, salary or labor of the spouses or any of them; (c) the fruits, rents or interest received or accruing during the marriage, from the common or the private property of each of the spouses.

o Conjugal partnership DOES NOT merge the properties they acquired before. The rest of the property that the spouse acquired before their marriage is separate from the conjugal partnership.

 Guaranteed by absolute separation of capitals ISSUE: WON they are jointly liable for the debts incurred through conjugal partnership

HELD: YES

- CC 1698 = partners are not solidarily liable with respect to the debt of the partnership. - CC 1137 - solidarity will exist only when it is

expressly determined

- partner cannot be solidarity liable for the debts of the partnership, because,there is no legal provision imposing such burden upon one.

RESULT: properties of the conjugal partnership of the defendants are liable for the debt to the plaintiff, and in default thereof, they are jointly liable for the payment thereof.

Ansaldo vs Sheriff of Manila (supra) FC 109

Laperal v. Katigbak