[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
123 views2 pages

Title: Wong Vs Iac

Romarico and Katrina were married but living separately. Katrina entered into an agreement to consign jewelry from Anita, but failed to return it. Anita sued Katrina and Romarico to collect payment. The court ruled in Anita's favor. Romarico argued he was not involved and the properties seized were his. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, Katrina could not bind the conjugal partnership without Romarico's consent or the debts benefiting the family. The decision was void as to Romarico and the conjugal properties. Anita could still collect from Katrina personally.

Uploaded by

Quiqui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views2 pages

Title: Wong Vs Iac

Romarico and Katrina were married but living separately. Katrina entered into an agreement to consign jewelry from Anita, but failed to return it. Anita sued Katrina and Romarico to collect payment. The court ruled in Anita's favor. Romarico argued he was not involved and the properties seized were his. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, Katrina could not bind the conjugal partnership without Romarico's consent or the debts benefiting the family. The decision was void as to Romarico and the conjugal properties. Anita could still collect from Katrina personally.

Uploaded by

Quiqui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

3.

TITLE: WONG VS IAC


GR Nos. and Date:
G.R. No. 70082 August 19, 1991

Topic: Liabilities of the Absolute Community

FACTS:
 Romarico married to Katrina in 1964 and they had three children.
 The spouses had been living separately most of the time, even during the early
years of their marriage.
 In 1971, Romarico bought a parcel of land with money borrow from an
officemate.
 In 1972, Katrina entered into an agreement with Anita Chan, where the latter
consigned to the former pieces of jewelry valued at P321, 830.95.
 Anita demanded payment for the value of the jewelry when Katrina failed to
return the same within the 20-day period agreed upon.
 Anita and her husband Ricky filed against Katarina and her husband Romarico, an
action for collection of sum of money.
 After trial, the court promulgated a decision in favor of the consignors. A writ of
execution was thereafter issued upon the 4 lots in Angeles City all in the name of
the spouses. 2 of the lots were sold at public auction. 

 The husband, Romarico, filed an action for annulment of the decision including
the writ and levy of execution. He alleged that he was "not given his day in court"
because he was not represented by counsel as Attys. Albino and Yumul appeared
solely for his wife.
 Romarico alleged that he had nothing to do with the business transactions of his
wife as he did not authorize her to enter into such transactions.
 That the properties levied on execution and sold at public auction by the sheriff
were the husband’s capital properties and therefore, as to him, all the proceedings
had in the case were null and void. 

 The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the husband. The IAC affirmed the
lower court’s ruling. 


ISSUE:
Whether or not the debt incurred by Katrina without the knowledge of her husband can
satisfied through the conjugal property.

RULING:

Under the Civil Code (before the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988), a
wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she purchases things necessary for the
support of the family or when she borrows money for the purpose of purchasing things
necessary for the support of the family if the husband fails to deliver the proper sum;
when the administration of the conjugal partnership is transferred to the wife by the
courts or by the husband, and when the wife gives moderate donations for charity.

Application:
 In addition to the fact that her rights over the properties are merely inchoate prior
to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the consent of her husband and her
authority to incur such indebtedness had not been alleged in the complaint and
proven at the trial. 

 The writ of execution cannot be issued against the husband and the execution of
judgments extends only over properties belonging to the debtor-wife. 

 The conjugal properties cannot answer for the wife’s obligations as she
exclusively incurred the latter without the consent of her husband nor they did
redound to the benefit of the family. 

 Also no evidence submitted that the administration of the partnership had been
transferred to the wife by the husband before said obligations were incurred. 

 The decision was void only in so far as the husband and the conjugal properties
concerned, the consignors may still execute the debt against the wife, personally
and exclusively. 


You might also like