Ansaldo v Sheriff Case

G.R. No. L-43257 Feb. 19, 1937 Abad Santos, J. Cristobal

petitioners Margarita Quintos De Ansaldo and Angel A. Ansaldo
responden Sheriff of City of Manila, Fidelity & Surety Company of the PH Islands and Luzon Surety Company
ts
summary 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 Angel’s 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

HELD
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.