Ansaldo v Sherif

G.R. No. L-43257

petitioners
responden
ts
summary

Feb. 19, 1937

Abad Santos, J.

Cristobal

Margarita Quintos De Ansaldo and Angel A. Ansaldo

Sheriff of City of Manila, Fidelity & Surety Company of the PH Islands and Luzon Surety
Company
H agreed to indemnify a guarantor. Debtor defaulted to guarantor paid loan and then
sued H. After favorable judgment for the guarantor, sheriff levied on the bank account
of the spouses. Held: joint savings account as part of the property of the conjugal
partnership is not liable for the separate obligation of the husband. It will be liable only
if family derived benefit from the obligation, which in this case was not proved.

facts of the case

Romarico Agcaoili obtained a loan from Phil Trust Co. upon the express guaranty of Fidelity
and Surety Co. Angel Ansaldo in turn agreed to indemnify Fidelity. Agcaoili defaulted, and so
Fidelity paid Phil Trust. Fidelity then sued Ansaldo for the recovery of P19,065.17, and after
obtaining a judgment in its favor, caused the sheriff to levy on the joint savings account of Angel
and Margarita in BPI amounting to P165.84.
Margarita and Angel filed a 3rd-party claim alleging that the money is part of the conjugal
property of the spouses and not liable for the payment of Angels personal obligations. They also
filed an action against the (respondents) to have the execution levy declared void. The CFI
granted, ordering the [respondents] to pay P636.80, hence this appeal.

issue
WON a joint account of a husband and wife is liable for the payment of the obligation of the
husband? NO

ratio
It is undisputed that the sum of P636.80 which is now in controversy was derived from the
paraphernal property of Margarita. It therefore belongs to the conjugal partnership of the said
spouses.
The provision of article 1408 CC to the effect that the conjugal partnership shall be liable
for all the debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the husband must be
understood as subject to the qualifications established by article 1386 of the same Code, which
provides that:

The fruits of the paraphernal property cannot be subject to the payment of personal obligations of
the husband, unless it be proved that such obligation were productive of some benefit to the family.

The meaning of this article is clarified by reference to the first paragraph of the preceding
article 1385 which reads as follows:
The fruit of the paraphernal property form part of the assets of the conjugal partnership and are
subject to the payment of the debts and expenses of the spouses.

Construing the two article together, it seems clear that the fruits of the paraphernal
property which become part of the assets of the conjugal partnership are not liable for the
payment of personal obligations of the husband, unless it be proved that such obligations were
productive of some benefit to the family.

There was no attempt to prove that the obligations contracted by Angel produced any
benefit to the family. There is also no merit to the contention that half of the P636.80 belongs to
Angel and can be levied, because the right of one spouse to one-half of the property of the
conjugal partnership does not vest until the dissolution of the marriage when the conjugal
partnership is dissolved.