Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 118305. February 12, 1998.
_______________
35 Francel Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 127, 134,
January 22, 1996, per Mendoza, J.; citing Buan vs. Cama-ganacan, 16 SCRA 321,
February 28, 1966.
* SECOND DIVISION.
273
274
MARTINEZ, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
_______________
276
_______________
277
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
_______________
278
_______________
279
“The wordings of Article 161 of the Civil Code is very clear: for the
partnership to be held liable, the husband must have contracted
the debt ‘for the benefit of’ the partnership, thus:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
1) all debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit
of the conjugal partnership x x x.’
_______________
280
9
the case of Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin, that the husband as
head of the family and as administrator of the conjugal
partnership is presumed to have contracted obligations for
the benefit of the family or the conjugal partnership.
Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, the case of
Cobb-Perez is not applicable in the case at bar. This Court
has, on several instances, interpreted the term “for the
benefit of the conjugal partnership.” 10
In the cases of Javier vs.
11
Osmeña, Abella de 12Diaz vs.
Erlanger & Galinger, Inc., Cobb-Perez vs. 13
Lantin and G-
Tractors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, cited by the
petitioners, we held that:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
_______________
281
_______________
282
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
_______________
284
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
_______________
18 Ansaldo, et al. vs. Liberty Insurance Company, Inc. & Luzon Surety
Company, supra.
286
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
directly from the use of the loan. In the case at bar, the loan is a
corporate loan extended to PBM and used by PBM itself, not by
petitioner-appellee-husband or his family. The alleged benefit, if
any, continuously harped by respondents-appellants,
19
are not only
incidental but also speculative.”
_______________
19 Court of Appeals Resolution of Nov. 28, 1994 denying the motion for
reconsideration, pp. 1-2; Annex “B”; p. 41, rollo.
287
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
_______________
288
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17
5/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 286
Petition denied.
——o0o——
289
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a8bd2b43748d00522003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17