Carlos v Abelardo

Summary:

1. In 1989, Sps. Manuel and Theresa asked Theresa’s father Honorio Carlos for an advance of $25,000 to
buy a house from seller Pura Vallejo.

2. In 1994 Honorio Carlos filed a complaint for collection.

3. The Court ordered the spouses to pay back the loaned amount and that the conjugal property was
liable since the loaned amount was used to purchase the family home.

Facts:

1. Petitioner averred in his complaint filed on October 13, 1994 that in October 1989, respondent and
his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo approached him and requested him to advance the amount of
US$25,000.00 for the purchase of a house.

2. When petitioner inquired from the spouses in July 1991 as to the status of the amount he loaned to
them, the latter acknowledged their obligation but pleaded that they were not yet in a position to make
a definite settlement of the same. Thereafter, respondent expressed violent resistance to petitioners
inquiries on the amount to the extent of making various death threats against petitioner.

3. On October 13, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money and damages and
each of the respondents filed separate answers since by then they have already been separated. a.
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo admitted securing a loan together with her husband, from petitioner. b.
Manuel Abelardo denied that the $25,000 was a loan. He claims that this was his share from the profits
of the construction company of Honorio which he managed.

Issue #1: W/N the $25,000 used to buy the Abelardo conjugal house was a loan.

Held: Yes.

Ratio:

1. Manuel has received checks from the construction firm in the account of H.L. Carlos Construction,
while the $25,000 check came from the personal account of Honorio Carlos. 2. Also, Theresa herself
admitted that the amount was a loan. Issue

2: W/N Manuel was solely liable to pay for the loan. Held: defendant-husband and defendant-wife are
jointly and severally liable in the payment of the loan.

Ratio:

1. Early in time, it must be noted that payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife
before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they
redounded to the benefit of the family.
2. The loan is the liability of the conjugal partnership pursuant to Article 121 of the Family Code: Article
121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:

1. (2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse
for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the
consent of the other;

2. (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent
that the family may have been benefited;

3. If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be
solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.

Issue #3: W/N Honorio has civil liabilities towards Manuel for causing the alienation of his wife’s love.

Held: No.

Ratio: There is no proof that Honorio caused their separation.

Issue #4: W/N Manuel has civil liabilities towards Honorio for making death threats.

Held: Yes.

Ratio: Two witnesses gave testimonies that prove that death threats were made.

a. Randy Rosal, Honorio’s driver was given a written letter of threat and this was already presented as
evidence.

b. He told Irineo Pajarin, also a driver, “Sabihin mo sa biyenan ko babarilin ko siya pag nakita ko siya.”

The petition is granted. Honorio should be paid $25,000 or its equivalent in PH currency plus damages