CARLOS vs ABELARDO

G.R. No. 146504

April 4, 2002
Petitioner: Honorio L. Carlos
Respondents: Manuel T. Abelardo
Ponente: Kapunan, J.
FACTS:
Honorio Carlos filed a petition against Manuel Abelardo, his son-in-law for
recovery of the $25,000 loan used to purchase a house and lot located at
Paranaque. It was in October 1989 when the petitioner issued a check worth
as such to assist the spouses in conducting their married life independently.
The seller of the property acknowledged receipt of the full payment. In July
1991, the petitioner inquired from spouses status of the amount loaned from
him, the spouses pleaded that they were not yet in position to make a
definite settlement. Thereafter, respondent expressed violent resistance to
the extent of making various death threats against petitioner. In 1994,
petitioner made a formal demand but the spouses failed to comply with the
obligation. The spouses were separated in fact for more than a year prior
the filing of the complaint hence spouses filed separate answers. Abelardo
contended that the amount was never intended as a loan but his share of
income on contracts obtained by him in the construction firm and that the
petitioner could have easily deducted the debt from his share in the profits.
RTC decision was in favor of the petitioner however CA reversed and set
aside trial courts decision for insufficiency of evidence. Evidently, there was
a check issued worth $25,000 paid to the owner of the Paranaque property
which became the conjugal dwelling of the spouses. The wife executed an
instrument acknowledging the loan but Abelardo did not sign.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a loan obtained to purchase the conjugal dwelling can be
charged against the conjugal partnership.
HELD:
Yes, as it has rebounded to the benefit of the family. They did not deny that
the same served as their conjugal home thus benefiting the family. Hence,
the spouses are jointly and severally liable in the payment of the loan.
Abelardos contention that it is not a loan rather a profit share in the
construction firm is untenable since there was no proof that he was part of
the stockholders that will entitle him to the profits and income of the
company.
Hence, the petition was granted and Abelardo is ordered to pay the
petitioner in the amount of $25,000 plus legal interest including moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

COSTUNA vs DOMONDON
G.R. No. 82753
December 19, 1989
Petitioner: Estela Costuna
Respondents: Laureana Domondon the Hon. Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch XCVIII, Quezon City, The Hon. Presiding Justices of the
Court of Appeals, 13th Division, Manila
Ponente: Sarmiento, J.
FACTS:
The spouses Amadeo and Estela Costuna during their marriage
acquired three parcels of land with an aggregate area of 599 square meters,
more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificates of title Nos. 1235,18118,
and 24365, all of which lots are located in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon
City, and registered in the name of Amadeo Costuna. On November 8, 1976,
Amadeo executed his last will and testament. He was then 68 years old.
Following the execution of the last will and testament aforesaid, the spouses
were beset with marital problems.

Sometime in November, 1977, Amadeo sustained third degree burns

on his legs for which he was treated at various hospitals on different dates.
On April 17, 1977, relatives of Amadeo requested that he be brought to
Samar as there were documents that needed his signature pertaining to his
Samar properties. Since then, Amadeo was never returned to the petitioner
and stayed with his sister. Thus, a dispute ensued between Amadeo's
relatives and the petitioner over his custody prompting the latter to institute
a petition for habeas corpus on June 1 8, 1978, before the then Court of First
Instance of Quezon City. On June 23, 1978, Amadeo filed an action for
partition before the then Juvenile Domestic and Relations Court, docketed as
Case No. Q-25545. Failing to get the petitioner's consent to the desired
partition notwithstanding repeated demands therefor, Amadeo was
constrained to execute a deed of sale, on July 10, 1978, over the one-half
(1/2) undetermined portion of the conjugal property, without his wife's
consent, in favor of Laureana Domondon (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent). The death of Amadeo on November 5, 1978, however, rendered
the aforecited cases moot and academic. With Amadeo's death, Special
Proceedings No. Q-26351 was instituted by his widow claiming one half (1/2)
share over the earlier mentioned three lots by virtue of the deed of sale
executed in her favor by Amadeo on July 10, 1978, the respondent opposed
the allowance of the will.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant can be compelled to signify her conformity in

the deed of sale.
HELD:
Yes, Article 171 of the New Civil Code provides that "the husband may
dispose of the conjugal partnership property for purposes specified in Articles
161 and 162". This means that the husband may alienate the conjugal
properties even without the consent of the wife if the proceeds thereof will
be utilized for those provided under Articles 161 and 162. Moreover, as
provided under Art. 161, all debts and obligations contracted by the husband
for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, and those contracted by the wife,
also for the same purpose, in the cases where she may legally bind the
partnership; The support of either spouses (sic) is definitely for the benefit of
the conjugal partnership. For if either of them is physically ill, the conjugal
partnership likewise suffers. Considering the above reasons, the sale of onehalf of the conjugal properties made by the husband for his hospitalization
and medical purposes was valid.