CASE NO. 97 PETRONA JAVIER VS.

LAZARO OSMENA (as administrator of the estate of the deceased Tomas Osmena) CHARGES UPON AND OBLIGATIONS OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS (with consent) PONENTE: ARELLANO, C.J.: FACTS: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) Petrona Javier, the only daughter of Felix Javier and Matea Corunan, is the wife of Florentino Collantes. Matea Corunan died in 1901 and Felix in 1908. In 1890, Florentino and Petrona were married. And after the death of Matea, Felix married Pascuala Santos. At the death of Feliz and Matea, they left as an inheritance to Petrona TWO URBAN PROPERTIES situated on Calle Carriedo and Calle San Sebastian. 5.) In order to gain her absolute ownership of the properties, Petrona acquired the usufructuary right of Pascuala to the estate of Felix for the sum of 3000 PHP. 6.) This 3000 PHP was obtained through the mortgage of the property she had inherited. 7.) Side Story: In 1891, Florentino was employed by Petronas father, Felix, in a commission business in Manila. In 1902, Felix retired from the business and was succeeded by Florentino. He was able to handle the business for 6 years (1908). 8.) One of the major clients of the Felix and Florentino was Tomas Osmena, a merchant from Cebu. 9.) Felix and Florentino represented Tomas in Manila for the sale of tobacco consigned to them by Tomas. The profits were to be invested in Tomas name. 10.) When Felix retired in 1902, he was indebted to Tomas Osmena in the sum of 4K-5K PHP. 11.) In 1908, Florentino gave a statement to Tomas stating that their debt amounted to 14K-15K PHP. Tomas did not do anything about this. 12.) In June of 1913, upon the death of Tomas, his administrator, Lazaro Osmena, took the step to collect the debt. Florentino admitted the debt with an interest of 12% per annum. Total debt was 26plus thousand. 13.) So, on June 15, 1913, the judgement was rendered and the sheriff executed it by selling at public auction all the right, title, interest of Florentino over the 2 parcels of improved real estate, including the usufructuary interest of Pascuala which was acquired by Petrona. 14.) Despite her protest, the sale was carried out. The successful bidder was Lazaro Osmena who paid P500 for each parcel. 15.) Petrona asserted that her husband had no rights over the land or in the usufructuary interest that she acquired. Thus, she filed claim of intervention to recover her ownership and the right of usufruct upon the annulment of the sale. 16.) Osmena said that he admits the fact that Petrona actually owned the 2 parcels of land and the usufructuary right of Pascuala. However, he said, that the money used to purchase the usufructuary right belonged to the conjugal partnership, thus making the right conjugal. So he prays that: a) The revenues from both parcels of land are conjugal partnership property b) That the revenues be made liable for the payment c) That a receiver be appointed to take charge of the 2 properties and manage them so that the revenues may be given as payment to the debt. 17.) RTC annulled the sale of the 2 properties. So he appealed. ISSUE: WON the sum owed by Florentino to the Osmena estate can and should be paid out of the fruits and revenues of the 2 parcels of land which exclusively belong to Petrona.

RULE: Yes. The revenues are liable for the payment of the debt of the husband and that there is no need for an appointment of a receiver. ANALYSIS: 1.) There is a natural presumption of fact that whatever the husband may have spent for his family was out of his commission for the services as a broker. 2.) The origin of the debt was the balance from the accounts rendered by him as a broker to his principal Osmena. Considering 1 and 2, which were statements of Petrona, it can be concluded that the debt must be paid out of the community property of the marriage since Article 1408 of the Civil Code provides that(PAGE 340) 3.) Article 1385: The fruits of the paraphernal property form a part of the assets fo the conjugal partnership, and are liable for the payment of marriage expenses. Hence, the creditor may bring his action not against the paraphernal property but against the fruits and revenues of the private property of the wife. 4.) Petrona asserts the provision of Article 1386 (page 340 at the bottom) But the debts contracted by the husband during the marriage in the exercise of his profession, cannot be deemed his personal and private debts nor can they be excepted from payment out of the products or revenue of the wifes own property, which, like that of her husbands, is liable for the discharge of the marriage liabilities. 5.) Lastly (last na to promise. Sorry napahaba ) According to article 1384, the wife shall have the management of.and the husband the administrator(page 344). So to confide the management of the property to a receiver is to deprive the husband and the wife of their respective rights.