You are on page 1of 1

Facts: Mr and Mrs Buado filed a civil case against Erlinda Nicol.

On Paril 1987, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Erlinda to a! da"ages to the etitioners. #he ersonal ro erties of Erlinda $ere insufficient to a! the da"ages. #he sheriff levied and auctioned the ro ert! of Erlinda. %n action sale $as held $ith the etitioners as the highest &idder. % certificate of sale $as issued in favour of Mr and Mrs Buado. %fter al"ost one !ear, the hus&and of Erlina, 'o"ulo Nicol, filed a co" laint for the annul"ent of certificate of sale and da"ages $ith reli"inar! in(unction against etitioners and de ut! sheriff. )e argued that there $as no ro er u&lication and osting for the auction sale. )e also clai"ed that the (udge"ent o&ligation of Erlinda Nicol a"ounted to P*+,+++ onl!. #he s ouses Buado o&tained the P,++,+++ $orth of ro ert! for onl! ,1,-8,. #he 'egional #rial .ourt dis"issed the etition of 'o"ulo Nicol. #he .% reversed the decision of the '#. and held that Branch /1 has (urisdiction to act on the co" laint filed &! the res ondent in this case. #he etitioners filed a etition $here the! said that the .ourt of % eals co""itted a grave a&use of discretion for reversing the decision given &! the '#.. 0ssue: 1hether or not the o&ligation of Erlinda Nicol arising fro" her cri"inal lia&ilit! is chargea&le to the con(ugal artnershi . )eld: No. Erlinda Nicol2s lia&ilit! is not chargea&le to the con(ugal artnershi . 3nli4e in the s!ste" of a&solute co""unit! $here lia&ilities incurred &! either s ouse &! reason if a cri"e or 5uasi6delict is chargea&le to the a&solute co""unit! of ro ert!, in the a&sence of insufficienc! of the e7clusive ro ert! of the de&tor6 s ouse, the sa"e advantage is not accorded in the s!ste" of con(ugal artnershi of gains. #he con(ugal artnershi of gains has no dut! to "a4e advance a!"ents for the lia&ilit! of the de&tor6s ouse. Petitioners argue that the o&ligation of the $ife arising fro" her cri"inal lia&ilit! is chargea&le to the con(ugal artnershi . #he 8. does not agree to the contention of Mr and Mrs. Buado. 0n 9uadalu e v #ronco, this .ourt held that the car $hich $as clai"ed &! the third art! co" lainant to &e con(ugal ro ert! $as &eing levied u on to enforce :a (udge"ent for su ort; filed &! a third erson, the third6 art! clai" of the $ife is ro er since the o&ligation $hich is ersonal to the hus&and is chargea&le not on the con(ugal ersonal ro ert! &ut on his se arate ro ert!. )ence, the filing of a se arate action &! 'o"ulo Nicol $as ro er. #he decision of the .ourt of % eals is affir"ed.