HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK,
petitioner
v
MIGUELA C. DAILO, respondent
FACTS:
- Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married on
August 8, 1967. During their
marriage, the spouses purchased a
house and lot.
- The Deed of Absolute Sale, however,
was executed only in favor of the late
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. as vendee
thereof to the exclusion of his wife.
- In 1993, through a grant of Special
Power of Attorney to Lilibeth
Gesmundo, Marcelino obtained a
loan from petitioner Homeowners
Savings and Loan Bank, secured by
the property in San Pablo.
- Gesmundo also executed a Real
Estate Mortgage on the subject
property in favor of petitioner
without the knowledge and consent
of respondent.
- The loan matured and remained
outstanding which led to the
foreclosure of the mortgage.
- In 1995, Marcelino died.
- Respondent claimed that she had no
knowledge of the mortgage and the
property was conjugal in nature,
thus she instituted Nullity of Real
Estate Mortgage and Certificate of
Sale, etc. against petitioner.
- Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of
the complaint on the ground that the
property in question was the
exclusive property of the late
Marcelino Dailo, Jr.
- The CA favored Miguela.
- Hence this petition.
ISSUES:
- W/N the conjugal partnership is
liable for the payment of loan
obtained by the late Marcelino Dailo,
Jr. the same having redounded to
the benefit of the family.
RULING:
- The petition lacks merit.
- The Court held that the property
relation in this case shall be
governed by Family Code, and
suppletorily by Civil Code.
- The spouses were married in 1967,
having no marriage settlement.
Thus, their properties were governed
by the system of Conjugal Property
of Gains.
- For the property to be held liable,
the obligation contracted by the late
spouse must have redounded to the
benefit of the conjugal partnership.
- The burden of proof that the debt
was contracted for the benefit of the
conjugal partnership of gains lies
with the creditor-party litigant.
- The court held that for failure to
present clear proof that the said
obligation redounded to the benefit
of the family which under Article 121
of the Family Code, the subject
property could not be held liable.
- WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED.