Spouses Buado v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 145222
April 24, 2009
Facts:
Spouses Roberto and Venus Buado filed a complaint against Erlinda Nicol for slander. The trial court rendered a decision ordering Erlinda to pay the damages. The decision reached the Supreme Court but was affirmed, and it became final and executory on March 5, 1992.
In October 1992, the trial court issued a writ of execution against the personal properties of Erlinda Nicol, stating that if the properties are insufficient to cover the civil liability, the Deputy Sheriff shall issue a notice of levy on real property against a property. Finding Erlinda’s personal property to be insufficient, the notice of levy was annotated on the Transfer Certificate Title No. T-125322. A public auction followed, wherein the spouses Buado were the highest bidders. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of the Buados.
Almost a year later, Erlinda’s husband, Romulo Nicol, filed a complaint for annulment of certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction. The Buados contend that Romulo is not the third party contemplated in Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and that the obligation of Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the family. According to the law, a third-party claimant may also resort to an independent separate action, the object of which is the recovery of ownership or possession of the property seized by the sheriff, as well as damages arising from wrongful seizure and detention of the property.
Issues:
1. Did Erlinda’s obligation redound to the benefit of the family?
2. Is Romulo Nicol a proper third party as contemplated in Section 16, rule 39 of the Rules of Court?
Ruling:
1. No. Erlinda’s obligation clearly did not redound to the benefit of the family. It is an obligation arising from a criminal liability.
2. Yes. Only a stranger may file a third-party claim. In this case, the court needed to determine the character of the property as well as if the obligation would redound to the benefit of the family. It has been ruled in previous cases that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a “stranger” to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Meanwhile, other cases decided by the Supreme Court held that a spouse is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of execution was issued and is therefore justified in bringing an independent action to vindicate her right of ownership over his exclusive or paraphernal property.
The contested property is conjugal in nature and therefore could not be made liable for the personal debts contracted by the husband or wife before or during the marriage if it did not redound to the benefit of the family. The conjugal partnership of gains is unlike the absolute community of property where the community may be held liable for the liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of crime or quasi-delict if the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse is insufficient. Unless some benefit redounded to the family, the conjugal partnership shall not be liable.
It's a Ping Thing 