Honorio L. Carlos v. Manuel T.

Abelardo
G.R. No. 146504 – April 2, 2002
First Division
Katipunan, J.

Article/s invoked
FC, Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-
spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of
them with the consent of the other;
(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the
extent that the family may have been benefited;
If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be
solitarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.

Case Summary
Petitioner filed a complaint for collection of US$25,000 due to the failure of the respondent and
his wife to pay for the said amount that was used to purchase their house and lot. Respondent and
wife answered separately since they have been separated for over a year prior to filing the
complaint. The wife admitted securing the loan with her husband from the petitioner. Respondent
claimed that the amount in question was part of the profit sharing which was promise to him by
the petitioner for reviving the losing company of the latter. The Supreme Court held that the
respondent failed to substantiate his claim that he was entitled to such benefits. Moreover, the loan
was chargeable to the conjugal partnership, under Art. 121 of the Family Code.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
 October 1989 – respondent (petitioner’s son-in-law) and his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-
Abelardo approached the petitioner and requested him to advance US$25,000 for the
purchase of a house and lot at #19952 Chestnut Street, Executive Heights Village,
Paranaque, Metro Manila
 October 31, 1989 – petitioner issued a check in full payment to the name of one Pura Vallejo,
seller of property, who acknowledged the receipt thereof
 July 1991 – petitioner inquired with the spouses about the status of the amount he loaned them
o Spouses acknowledged that they could not make a definite settlement yet
o Respondent expressed violent resistance – death threats – regarding the inquiries
 August 24, 1994 – petitioner made a formal demand for the payment
 October 13, 1994 – petitioner filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money and damages
against respondent and his wife before the RTC of Valenzuela Branch-172
o Petitioner asked for payment of US$25,000 or P625,000 plus legal interest from date of
extra-judicial demand, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit
 Separated for more than a year, respondent and his wife filed separate answers.
 o Maria Abelardo admitted securing a lone with her husband from the petitioner. She
however claimed that the loan was payable on a staggered basis so she was surprised
about the immediate payment.
 Respondent admitted receiving the amount but claimed that:
o He revived the otherwise dormant construction firm H.L. Carlos Construction of
petitioner
o Defendant was made to believe that the earnings from construction will be for him and
his family
o Plaintiff gave US$25,000 to defendant to square off account and to start his arrangement
with the petitioner – a profit-sharing scheme such that all projects amounting to over
P10M shall be for the account of plaintiff and lower amount shall be for defendant’s
account but under the firm’s name
o The amount was never intended as a loan. It was his share of income on contracts
obtained by defendant
o He never made any death threats.
 Respondent made a compulsory counterclaim for moral damages for causing the alienation of
his wife’s love and affection, attorney’s fees and costs of suit
 June 26, 1996 – RTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner
 November 10, 2000 – Court of Appeals revered and set aside the RTC decision
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
1) W/N the loan is the liability of the conjugal partnership
Yes.
 The loan is the liability of the conjugal partnership pursuant to Art. 121 of the Family Code.
 The loan contributed to the benefit of the family as it was used to purchase the house and
lot that became the conjugal home of the respondent and his family.
o In spite of the alleged lack of consent of respondent regarding the loan
acknowledgment, he remains solitarily liable under Art. 121 of the Family Code.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 54464 is MODIFIED in that respondent is ordered to pay petitioner the amounts (1)
US$25,000 or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the time of payment, plus legal interest from
August 4, 1994, until fully paid; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P20,000 as exemplary
damages; and (4) P50,000 as attorney’s fees.