G.R. No.

L-25355             August 28, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. FROILAN

LAGRIMAS, accused, 
HEIRS OF PELAGIO CAGRO, heirs-appellants, 
MERCEDES AGUIRRE DE LAGRIMAS, movant-appellee.

Facts: Froilan Lagrimas who was accused for the crime of murder against the deceased
Pelagio Cagro was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court. The lower court in its fin al
judgment imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua and a civil liability amounting to 16,
000 pesos. Meanwhile, the heirs of Cargo to acquire of the civil indemnity imposed by
the RTC, filed a motion for the issuance of the writ of preliminary execution on the
property of the accused, which the lower court granted on March 5, 1960. A levy was had
on eleven parcels of land in the province declared for tax purposes in the name of the
accused and the sale thereof at public auction was scheduled. However, Mercedes
Lagrimas, the wife of the accused filed a petition before the RTC praying to quash the
said attachment thereby asserting that the property that belongs to the conjugal
partnership cannot be made to pay for the pecuniary indemnity that the accused
husband was bound to fulfill. The wife’s petition was granted by the first judge declaring
the order of attachment and the writ of execution as null and void. The second judge
sustained the legality of the preliminary attachment as well as the writ of execution but
the third judge revived the original order of March 5, 1960, declaring such attachment
and the writ of execution thereafter issued as null and void.
Issue: Whether or not the properties that belong to the conjugal partnership of
Mercedes and Froilan can be held liable for the civil indemnity incurred by the latter.
Ruling: Yes. The conjugal partnership shared by both the husband and wife can be held
liable for the fines and damages incurred by anyone of them. The Court ruled that, fines
and indemnities imposed upon either husband or wife "may be enforced against the
partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in article 161 have been covered,
if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be
insufficient.
It is quite plain, therefore, that the period during which such a liability may be
enforced presupposes that the conjugal partnership is still existing. It contemplates that
the responsibilities to which enumerated in Article 161 covering primarily the
maintenance of the family and the education of the children of the spouses or the
legitimate children of one of them as well as other obligations of a preferential character,
chargeable against such assets, must be complied with first.
The Supreme lamented the case by ruling that, if the appealed order were to be
upheld, Froilan would be in effect exempt therefrom, and the heirs of the offended party
in result would suffer and for that, the appealed order of August 7, 1965 is hereby set
aside and the case remanded to the court of origin for the reception of evidence in
accordance with this opinion.