7.Buado v.

Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 145222, 24 April 2009

FACTS:

 On April 30 1984, Spouses Roberto and Venus Buado, petitioners, filed a complaint for damages against
Erlinda Nicol for her civil liability arising from criminal offense of slander filed by petitioners. Trial court
rendered a decision to let Erlinda Nicol pay for damages. Finding Erlinda Nicol‘s personal properties
insufficient to satisfy the judgment. The sheriff levied and auctioned the property of Erlinda. An auction
sale was held with the petitioners as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of Mr.
and Mrs. Buado.

 After almost one year, the husband of Erlinda, Romulo Nicol, filed a complaint for the annulment of
certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction against petitioners and deputy sheriff. He
argued that there was no proper publication and posting for the auction sale. He also claimed that the
judgment obligation of Erlinda Nicol amounted to P40,000 only. The spouses Buado obtained the P500,
000 worth of property for only P51,685. The case was assigned to Branch 21 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite.
The RTC dismissed the petition of Romulo Nicol and ruled that Branch 19 has jurisdiction over the
case.Respondent moved(Romulo) for reconsideration but it was denied on 26 July 1994

 The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and held that Branch 21 has jurisdiction to act on
the complaint filed by the respondent in this case. The petitioners filed a petition where they said that the
Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion for reversing the decision given by the RTC.

 The issue devolves on whether the husband of the judgment debtor may file an independent action to
protect the conjugal property subject to execution. The alleged error therefore is an error of judgment
which is a proper subject of an appeal.

ISSUES:

1. Is the husband, who was not a party to the suit but whose conjugal property is being executed on account of the other spouse
being the judgment obligor, considered a "stranger?

2. Whether or not the obligation of Erlinda Nicol arising from her criminal liability is chargeable to the
conjugal partnership.

RULING:

1. In determining whether the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be
taken into account. In Mariano v. Court of Appeals,11 which was later adopted in Spouses Ching v. Court
of Appeals,12 this Court held that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a "stranger" to
the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has redounded to the benefit of
the conjugal partnership

2. NO. Erlinda Nicol‟s liability is not chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

There is no dispute that contested property is conjugal in nature. Article 122 of the Family Code
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.

Parenthetically, by no stretch of imagination can it be concluded that the civil obligation arising from
the crime of slander committed by Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

To reiterate, conjugal property cannot be held liable for the personal obligation contracted by one
spouse, unless some advantage or benefit is shown to have accrued to the conjugal partnership.The
decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Notes:

As correctly pointed out by the defendants, any flaw in the implementation of the writ of execution by the implementing
sheriff must be brought before the court issuing the writ of execution. Besides, there are two (2) remedies open to the
plaintiff, if he feels that the property being levied on belongs to him and not to the judgment debtor. The first remedy is to file
a third-party claim. If he fails to do this, a right is reserved to him to vindicate his claim over the property by any proper
action. But certainly, this is not the proper action reserved to the plaintiff to vindicate his claim over the property in question
to be ventilated before this court. As earlier stated, this case should have been addressed to Branch 19, RTC Bacoor as it was
that court which issued the writ of execution.

A petition for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is adopted to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower
court or quasi-judicial agency, or when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of such court or agency amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment, the
proper remedy should be appeal. In addition, an independent action for certiorari may be availed of only when there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.