HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK, 

Petitioner, vs. MIGUELA C. DAILO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 153802. March 11, 2005
FACTS:
The Spouses Dailo acquired a land during their marriage, in which it is registered in the name of the late
husband. Before the husband’s death, the land was mortgaged for the loan obtained from Homeowner’s
Savings and Loan Bank without the knowledge and consent of his wife, the respondent.
After the death of her husband, in one her visits to the property she found out that Homeowner’s Savings
and Loan Bank hired a person maintaining the property and the car within the property was razed.
Ms. Dailo filed a petition before the RTC claiming that she did not have knowledge of the mortgage,
therefore asked Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage and Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of Consolidation of
Ownership, Deed of Sale, Reconveyance with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Damages against
petitioner.
The petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground the property in question is an
exclusive property of Mr. Dailo.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in the absence of
clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the property belongs to the conjugal
partnership.
ISSUE:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE MORTGAGE CONSTITUTED BY THE LATE MARCELINO DAILO,

JR. ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS CO-OWNER THEREOF IS VALID AS TO HIS UNDIVIDED
SHARE.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP IS LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF

THE LOAN OBTAINED BY THE LATE MARCELINO DAILO, JR. THE SAME HAVING
REDOUNDED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE FAMILY.

RULING:
The issue affirmed the decision of the lower Courts.

To answer the first issue, the court cited Guiang v Court of Appeals. In applying Art. 124 of the Family
Code, it stated that the principle applied in the Guiang case fits squarely in this case. The court further
stated that there is no legal basis to apply Art. 493 of the Civil Code, rules on co-ownership, because the
spouse’s property regime is Conjugal Partnership of gains. Therefore, it shall be governed by the Chapter
4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of the Family Code and, suppletorily, by the rules on partnership
under the Civil Code. In case of conflict, the former prevails because the Civil Code provisions on
partnership apply only when the Family Code is silent on the matter.

On the second issue, the burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership of gains lies with the creditor. In this case the petitioner’s failed to provide adequate proof
that the loan obtained by Mr. Marcelion Dalio redounded to the benefit of the family.

Therefore, the petition was denied by the Supreme Court.