the ones who set the court in motion. They cannot be permitted to complain if thecourt, after due hearing, adjudges question against them.
Calma vs. TanedoFacts:
Spouses Eulalio Calma and Fausta Macasaquit were the owners of aproperty, being their conjugal property. They were also indebted to Esperanza Tanedo, chargeable against the conjugal property, in the sums of P948.34 andP247, with interest at 10% per annum. Fausta died leaving a will wherein sheappointed her daughter, Maria Calma, as administratrix of her properties. While theprobate proceedings of Fausta were pending, Tanedo filed a complaint againstEulalio for the recovery of the sums of money, and the CFI rendered judgment forthe payment of the debt. In the execution of the judgment, despite the third partyclaim filed by Fausta, the property was sold by the sheriff.
WON the sale of the property was valid; WON the estate of Fausta is the soleand absolute owner of the property in question
The amendment introduced by Act No. 3176 consists in authorizing theinstitution of testate or intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of adeceased spouse or of an ordinary action for the liquidation and partition of theproperty of a conjugal partnership. It should be understood that these remedies arealternative, and not cumulative, in the sense that they cannot be availed of at thesame time. Consequently, the testamentary proceedings of Fausta having beeninstituted, the liquidation and partition of the conjugal property by reason of hermarriage to Eulalio should be made in these proceedings, to the exclusion of anyother proceeding for the same purpose. The SC also decided in another case that when the marriage is dissolved by deathof the wife, the legal power of management of the husband ceases, passing to theadministrator appointed by the court in the testate or intestate proceedingsinstituted to that end if there be any debts to be paid. From the foregoing, it followsthat when Esperanza Tanedo brought suit against Eulalio for the payment of thedebt, which were debts chargeable against the conjugal property, the power of Eulalio as legal administrator of the conjugal property while Fausta was living, hadceased and passed tot eh administratrix Maria. Hence, this being an indebtednesschargeable against conjugal property, no complaint for its payment can be broughtagainst Eulalio, who had already ceased as administrator of the conjugal property. The claim for this amount had to be filed in the testamentary proceedings of Fausta.
Ocampo vs. PotencianoFacts:
Edilberto Ocampo, married to Paz Yatco, executed a deed purporting toconvey to his relative, Conrado Potenciano and his wife Rufina Reyes, by way of salewith
pacto de retro
for the sum of P2,500, a town lot with a house as strongmaterials standing thereon. On the same day Ocampo signed another document,making it appear that, for an annual rental of P300, which is equivalent to 12% of the purchase price, the vendees were leasing to him the house and lot for theduration of the redemption period. Though registered in the name of Ocampo alone,it in reality belonged to him and his wife as conjugal property. The period originallyfixed for the repurchase was one year, “extendible to another year,” but severalextensions were granted, with the vendor paying part of the principal in addition to