ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™  

Tweet Share
Custom Search Search

   

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence >

Khata Book INSTALL

Khata Book INSTALL

#1 Digital Ledger

Civil Wedding Supreme Court Cases Marital Family

Civil Course Appeals Court Civil Appeal
Civil Lawsuit Family Law Rules Court and Law

www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC
 G.R. No. L-4299 January 31, 1952

ROBERTO LAPERAL, JR. AND PURIFICACION M. LAPERAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. RAMON KATIGBAK
and EVELINA KATIGBAK, Defendants-Appellees.

Cabili and Lopez for appellants.

Bausa and Ampil for appellees.

BENGZON, J.:

In the court of first instance of Manila, the plaintiffs, Roberto Laperal Jr. and his wife Purificacion M.
Laperal sued Ramon L. Katigbak and his wife Evelina K. Katigbak to recover the total sum of one
hundred thirteen thousand and five hundred pesos (P113,500) plus interest and costs. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The defendant Evelina moved to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint failed to state sufficient facts
to constitute a cause of action against her. The plaintiff opposed the motion; but the court, Judge Emilio
Pe�a presiding, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. Hence this appeal. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Two causes of action were set forth in the complaint. The first transcribed four promissory notes for
various sums, signed on different dates of March, April and May of the year 1950, by Ramon Katigbak in
favor of Roberto Laperal Jr. The total amount is P14,000. The notes are not signed by Evelina. The only
allegations that may effect her liability if any, are that Ramon signed the notes for value received "while
married to her", and that both defendants refused to pay the notes. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is obvious for that the aforesaid notes of the defendant Evelina is not personally liable. Ramon was
not her agent, and he did not contract for her. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The husband cannot by his contract bind the paraphernal property unless its administration has been
transferred to him, which is not the case. Neither can the paraphernal property be made to answer for
debts incurred by the husband. 1 chanrobles virtual law library

For the repayment of the sums borrowed by him, Ramon Katigbak was personally responsible with his
own private funds, and at most the assets of the conjugal partnership. To reach both kinds of property it
is unnecessary for plaintiffs to implead the wife Evelina K. Katigbak. "Where the husband is alone liable,
no action lies against the wife, and she is not a necessary party defendant." 2 chanrobles virtual law library

Of course there are in Civil Code 3 provisions that although the fruits of the paraphernal property form
part of the assets of the conjugal partnership, they may not be subjected to the payment of personal
obligations of the husband, unless it be proved that such obligations redounded to the benefit of the
family. 4 Perhaps in view of these provisions the plaintiffs have included Evelina to give her a chance to
defend her interests. But plaintiffs having made no allegation about benefits to the family we fail to see
the necessity or justice of bothering said defendant. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Under the second cause of action the complaint averred that "the defendant Ramon L. Katigbak while
married to defendant Evelina K. Katigbak received from the plaintiffs eleven pieces of jewelry valued at
P97,500 belonging to plaintiffs for sale on commission basis with the understanding that he either
should pay its value or return whatever pieces of jewelry remain unsold within fifteen (15) days from his
receipt thereof," and that notwithstanding the lapse of the fifteen-day period the defendants refused to
return the jewels or to pay their value. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As the receipts for the jewelry are signed by Ramon L. Katigbak what has been stated concerning the
first cause of action applies equally to this. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is true that the plaintiffs allege that both "defendants acted as their agents" in the sale on commission
of the jewels; but having attached the receipts as integral parts of the complaint, their allegation as to
agency in so far as inference from the marital relation; - not a factual assertion based on specific
contract. The legal conclusion is not supported by any statute. The provisions of the New Civil Code
which plaintiffs invoke on the matter are not applicable, the transaction having been place before June
1950.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore the appealed decision will be affirmed, with costs against appellants. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.

 Endnotes:

1 Alvaran vs. Marquez, 11 Phil., 263; Vargas vs. Egamino, 12 Phil. 56; Veloso vs. Martinez, 28 Phil. 255. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2 41 C.J.S. p. 907.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3 The New Civil Code dose not apply because the transactions occurred before June, 1950. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4 Arts. 1385, 1386.

Famous Inn Tagaytay

From ₱1,124.89 Your exclusive deals here
Traveloka

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRoblesPublishing Company|  Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™  RED