Scribd
Upload
292 views2 pages

Conjugal Property Liability in Slander Case

1) The wife's criminal liability for slander is not chargeable to the conjugal partnership. Unlike absolute community, liabilities incurred due to a crime or wrongdoing by one spouse is not chargeable to the conjugal partnership in the absence of exclusive property of the debtor spouse. 2) The husband may properly file a third party claim since the wife's criminal liability is not chargeable to the conjugal property but to her separate property. In determining if the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be taken into account. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Costs were awarded against the petitioners.

Uploaded by

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

Conjugal Property Liability in Slander Case

1) The wife's criminal liability for slander is not chargeable to the conjugal partnership. Unlike absolute community, liabilities incurred due to a crime or wrongdoing by one spouse is not chargeable to the conjugal partnership in the absence of exclusive property of the debtor spouse. 2) The husband may properly file a third party claim since the wife's criminal liability is not chargeable to the conjugal property but to her separate property. In determining if the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be taken into account. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Costs were awarded against the petitioners.

Uploaded by

John Leo Solinap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Spouses Buado vs Court of Appeals and Nicol

GR No. 143286, April 14, 24


!AC"S#
$n 3 April 1%84, Spouses Ro&erto and 'enus Buado (petitioners) filed a
co*plaint for da*a+es a+ainst ,rlinda Nicol (,rlinda) -it. Branc. 1% of t.e
Re+ional "rial Court (R"C) of Bacoor, Cavite &ased on civil lia&ilit/ arisin+
fro* t.e cri*inal offense of slander filed a+ainst .er &/ petitioners.
".e trial court rendered a decision orderin+ ,rlinda to pa/ da*a+es
particularl/ [Link]/ [Link] (03,.) pesos as *oral da*a+es, five
[Link] (01,.) pesos as attorne/2s fees and liti+ation e3penses, [Link]
five [Link] (01,.) pesos as e3e*plar/ da*a+es and t.e cost of suit.
Said decision -as affir*ed on appeal &/ t.e CA and it &eca*e final and
e3ecutor/.
$n 14 $cto&er 1%%2, t.e trial court issued a -rit of e3ecution co**andin+
[Link] of t.e +oods and [Link] of t.e defendant ,rlinda Nicol, or fro* .er
estates or le+al .eirs to satisf/ 4ud+*ent.
But t.e properties of Nicol -as not enou+. to satisf/ 4ud+*ent and as suc. t.e
5eput/ [Link] issued a notice of lev/ on real propert/ on e3ecution addressed
to t.e Re+ister of 5eeds of Cavite.
But t-o da/s &efore t.e pu&lic auction sale -.ic. -as to &e .eld on 6anuar/
2%, 1%%3, an affidavit of t.ird7part/ clai* of Arnulfo !. !ulo -as received &/
t.e deput/ [Link]. ".e petitioners put up a s.eriff2s inde*nit/ &ond and t.e
sale proceeded -it. t.e petitioners as t.e .i+.est &idder.
$n !e&ruar/ 4, 1%%3, a certificate of sale -as issued in favor of t.e
petitioners. Al*ost one /ear later, on !e&ruar/ 2 1%%4 Respondent Ro*ulo
Nicol, t.e .us&and of ,rlinda Nicol filed a co*plaint for annul*ent of t.e
certificate of sale and da*a+es -it. preli*inar/ in4unction a+ains t.e
petitioners and t.e deput/ [Link]
Respondent, -.o is plaintiff .erein, alle+ed [Link] t.e defendants, no-
petitioners, connived and directl/ levied upon and e3ecute .is real propert/
-[Link] [Link]+ t.e personal properties of ,rlinda Nicol. Respondent
averred [Link] [Link] -as no proper pu&lication and postin+ of t.e notice of sale.
![Link]*ore, respondent clai*ed [Link] .is propert/ -.ic. -as valued at
01,. -as onl/ sold at a 8ver/ lo- price8 of 011,681., -.ereas t.e
4ud+*ent o&li+ation of ,rlinda Nicol -as onl/ 04,.
9SS:,S#
;$N t.e -ife<s cri*inal lia&ilit/ is [Link]+ea&le to t.e con4u+al [Link]
;$N t.e .us&and of t.e 4ud+*ent de&tor *a/ file an independent action
to protect t.e con4u+al propert/ su&4ect to e3ecution.
=,>5#
$n t.e first issue# N$, t.e -ife<s cri*inal lia&ilit/ is [Link]+ea&le to t.e
con4u+al [Link]. :nli?e in t.e s/ste* of a&solute co**unit/ -.ere
lia&ilities incurred &/ [Link] spouse &/ reason of a cri*e or @uasi7delict is
[Link]+ea&le to t.e a&solute co**unit/ of propert/, in t.e a&sence or
insufficienc/ of t.e e3clusive propert/ of t.e de&tor7spouse, t.e sa*e
advanta+e is not accorded in t.e s/ste* of con4u+al [Link] of +ains.
9t cannot &e concluded [Link] t.e civil o&li+ation arisin+ fro* t.e cri*e of
slander co**itted &/ ,rlinda redounded to t.e &enefit of t.e con4u+al
[Link].
Con4u+al propert/ cannot &e .eld lia&le for t.e personal o&li+ation contracted
&/ one spouse, unless so*e advanta+e or &enefit is s.o-n to .ave accrued to
t.e con4u+al [Link]
$n t.e second issue# A,S, t.e .us&and *a/ properl/ file a [Link] part/ clai* in
t.e case at &ar since t.e -ife2s cri*inal lia&ilit/ is not [Link]+ea&le to t.e
con4u+al propert/ &ut on .er separate propert/.
9n deter*inin+ -.[Link] t.e .us&and is a stran+er to t.e suit, t.e [Link] of
t.e propert/ *ust &e ta?en into account.
9n Bariano v. Court of Appeals,11 -.ic. -as later adopted in Spouses [Link]+
v. Court of Appeals,12 [Link] Court .eld [Link] t.e .us&and of t.e 4ud+*ent de&tor
cannot &e dee*ed a 8stran+er8 to t.e case prosecuted and ad4ud+ed a+ainst .is
-ife for an o&li+ation [Link] .as redounded to t.e &enefit of t.e con4u+al
[Link].
;=,R,!$R,, t.e petition is 59SB9SS,5. ".e 5ecision of t.e Court of Appeals is
A!!9RB,5. Costs a+ainst petitioners.

You might also like