People v. Lagrimas, G.R. No.

L-25355, August 28, 1969

FACTS: Froilan Lagrimas was charged for the murder of Pelagio Cagro. Thereafter, the
heirs of Cagro filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on the
property of the accused, which was granted. Lagrimas was convicted and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the appellants. The judgment
became final. The lower court issued a writ of execution to cover the civil indemnity. A
levy was had on 11 parcels of land declared for tax purposes in the name of the
accused and the sale thereof at public auction was scheduled. However, the wife of the
accused, Mercedes Lagrimas, filed a petition to quash the said attachment contending
that the property belonged to the conjugal partnership and could not be held liable for
pecuniary indemnity the husband was required to pay. Her petition was granted.
Another judge set aside the said order. But upon Mercedes filing a motion for
reconsideration, a third judge revived the original order, declaring such attachment and
the writ of execution thereafter issued null and void.

ISSUE: WON properties from the conjugal properties of Mercedes and Froilan can be
held liable for the pecuniary indemnity incurred by the latter.

HELD: Yes. 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; xxx.

It is quite plain, therefore, that the period during which such a liability may be enforced
presupposes that the conjugal partnership is still existing for the law speaks of
partnership assets. That upon complying with the responsibilities enumerated in article
161, the fines and indemnities imposed upon a party of the conjugal partnership will be
satisfied.

If the appealed order were to be upheld, Froilan would be in effect exempt therefrom
and the heirs of the offended party being made to suffer still further; that for a
transgression of the law by either husband or wife, the rest of the family may be made
to bear burdens of an extremely onerous character.

PANA VS HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE

FACTS: Efren Pana and his wife Melecia and others were charged for murder before
the RTC Surigao City. Efren was acquitted while his wife other were found guilty. The
heirs of the deceased was awarded civil indemnity and moral damages and that the
RTC issued an order to levy the real properties of Efren and Melecia. Petitioner filed
a motion to quash the writ claiming that the properties levied were conjugal not
paraphernal of Melecia. Efren and Melecia were married when Family code took
effect and did not execute a pre nuptial agreement.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melecia can be
levied and exe
cuted upon for the satisfaction of Melecias civil liability in
the aforesaid case.

Held: Yes, provided that the conditions under Art 121 of the family code have been
covered. The SC explained that it is clear that Efren and Melecia were married when
the Civil Code was still operative on marriages. The presumption is that, absence of
any evidence to the contrary is that they were married under the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains. Furthermore, Art 119 of the Civil Code provides that the future
spouses may in marriage settlements agree upon absolute or relative community of
conjugal partnership of gains or upon a complete separation of property or any
other regime. The Family Code cannot modified except prior to marriage, and
clearly, under this situation, the spouses cannot modify their regime.