LIST OF ADDITIONAL CASE ASSIGNMENTS

Property Relations

1) De Leon vs. De Leon, , July 23, 2009

a. Facts

i. July 20, 1965 – Bonifacio de Leon entered Conditional Contract to Sell with
PHHC on installment a parcel of land in QC
ii. April 24, 1968 – Bonifacio married Anita, civil
iii. June 20, 1970 – PHHC executed Final Deed of Sale to Bonifacio, with
attendant TCT in the name of Bonifacio, status “single”
iv. Jan 12, 1974 – Bonifacio sold lot to sister Lita and her husband. Conveying
deed of sale did not bear written consent of Anita
v. May 23, 1977 – Bonifacio remarried Anita, church
vi. Feb 29, 1996 – Bonifacio died
vii. Deed of Sale executed 1974 only registered with Registrar of Deeds May 8,
1996
viii. RTC annulled sale of lot from Bonifacio to sister Lita and indemnify heirs
ix. Lita and husband appealed to CA
x. CA affirmed RTC judgement of annulment of sale but deleted damages

b. Issue – WON the subject parcel of lot is conjugal property

c. Ruling - Article 160 of the 1950 Civil Code, the governing provision in effect at
the time Bonifacio and Anita contracted marriage, provides that all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that
it pertains exclusively to the husband or the wife. Conditional contract executed
between Bonifacio and PHHC means that ownership will only vest upon full payment
of the lot, and the full payment of the lot happened during the subsistence of the
marriage, therefore the said lot is owned by the conjugal partnership. Digest

c.HR Analystvon da Special Watch projectct

2) Buado vs. CA, 586 SCRA 397, April 24, 2009

a. Facts

i. April 30, 1984 – Civil case for damages that arose from slander filed by
sps. Buado against Erlinda Nicol

ii. April 6, 1987 – RTC ruled that Erlinda is liable and ordered her to pay for
damages, which was affirmed by CA and SC

iii. Oct 14, 1992 – Trial court issued writ of execution, directing the sheriff to
collect the indemnification from Erlinda

iv. Finding Erlinda’s personal properties insufficient, sheriff deigned to issue

a notice of levy on real property on execution, and thereafter, a notice of
sheriff’s sale was issued
 v. Two days prior to the bidding, a Third Party Claim was received at the
sheriff’s office from one Arnulfo Fulo, prompting spouses Buado to put up a
sheriff’s indemnity bond. Sale proceeded with the sps. Buado emerging as
the highest bidder

vi.A year after the sale, Romulo Nicol, husband of Erlinda, filed a complaint
for annulment of certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction
against petitioners and the deputy sheriff, and alleged that the property was
directly levied upon without exhausting the personal properties of Erlinda

b. Issue – WON the husband considered subsidiarily liable for indemnification of

wife’s civil liability via disposal of conjugal property

c. Ruling - Article 122 of the Family Code16 explicitly provides that payment of
personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage
shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded
to the benefit of the family. Unlike in the system of absolute community where
liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of a crime or quasi-delict is
chargeable to the absolute community of property, in the absence or insufficiency of
the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the same advantage is not accorded in
the system of conjugal partnership of gains. The conjugal partnership of gains has
no duty to make advance payments for the liability of the debtor-spouse. Case is
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings

3) SEBTC vs. Mar Tierra Corp., 508 SCRA 419 (2006)

a. Facts

i. May 7, 1980 – Mar Tierra Corp via its President, Wilfrido Martinez,
applied for P 12M credit line with Security Bank. Officers bound themselves
jointly and severally with the Corp for payment of the loan.

ii. July 2, 1980 – credit line expanded to P 14M, corresponding new

indemnity agreement executed

iii. Sept 25, 1981 – corp availed of credit and received ~P10M to be
paid before Nov 30, 1981. Payment of ~P4.7M for principal and ~P 2.8M for
interest paid, but eventually had to close shop in 1984 for business reversals

iv. Security Bank filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer for
attachment. Other officers had the case dismissed, leaving Martinez as sole
respondent

v. Aug 10, 1982 – RTC issued writ of attachment on all real and personal
properties of corp and indiv respondent. Conjugal house and lot of spouses
Martinez levied upon

vi. June 20, 1994 - The RTC rendered its decision. It held respondent
corporation and individual respondent Martinez jointly and severally liable to
petitioner for P5,304,000 plus 12% interest per annum and 5% penalty
commencing on June 21, 1982 until fully paid, plus P10,000 as attorney’s
fees. It, however, found that the obligation contracted by individual
respondent Martinez did not redound to the benefit of his family, hence, it
 ordered the lifting of the attachment on the conjugal house and lot of the
spouses Martinez.

vii. SB appealed to CA but RTC decision was held in toto

b. Issue – WON the conjugal partnership of the Martinez spouses could be held
liable for the obligation incurred by individual Martinez

c. Ruling - Under Article 161(1) of the Civil Code, 8 the conjugal partnership is
liable for "all debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the
conjugal partnership. If the money or services are given to another person or entity
and the husband acted only as a surety or guarantor, the transaction cannot by
itself be deemed an obligation for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Proof
must be presented to establish the benefit redounding to the conjugal partnership.
In the absence of any showing of benefit received by it, the conjugal partnership
cannot be held liable on an indemnity agreement executed by the husband to
accommodate a third party. In this case, the principal contract, the credit line
agreement between petitioner and respondent corporation, was solely for the
benefit of the latter. The accessory contract (the indemnity agreement) under which
individual respondent Martinez assumed the obligation of a surety for respondent
corporation was similarly for the latter’s benefit. Petitioner had the burden of
proving that the conjugal partnership of the spouses Martinez benefited from the
transaction. It failed to discharge that burden. To hold the conjugal partnership
liable for an obligation pertaining to the husband alone defeats the objective of the
Civil Code to protect the solidarity and well being of the family as a unit. Petition for
attachment on the conjugal property is denied.

4)
Ferrer vs. Ferrer, 508 SCRA 570 (2006)
Family Home
5) Patricio vs. Dario III, 507 SCRA 438 (2006)

Paternity and Filiation

6)Concepcion vs. CA, 468 SCRA 438

a. Facts

i. Gerardo and Theresa were

7)Uy vs. Chua, 600 SCRA 806, Sep 18, 2009

8)Dela Cruz vs. Gracia, 594 SCRA 648, July 27, 2009

9)Republic Act No. 9858 (amending Art. 177 of the FC on legitimation)