99. Charges upon and Obligations of Conjugal Partnership of Gains G.R. No. L-57402 Ponente: Cuevas, J.

: Facts:
Luis R. Narciso legally married to Josefina S. Narciso is a bussinessman. Hes a producer & exporter of Philippine mahogany logs. G-Tractors Inc. is in the bussiness of leasing heavy equipments such as tractors, bulldozers, etc. On Freb. 26, 1973 Luis entered into a Contract of Hire of heavy Equipment with G-Tractors. Luis was not able to pay his obligations to G-Tractors, so they filed a case against him to collect the amount of P115,410.25 w/ interest, damages, & attorneys fees. Luis was declared in default, howevder a compromise agreement offered by Luis was accepted by G-Tractors. It stated that luis will pay thru installments. Again Luis failed to comply, so G-Tractors filed a motion for execution. Lusi asked for the suspension of the writ of execution on claims that he had a pending loan w/ a bank. Lower court denied his petition for suspension & the writ of execution was issued on Feb. 7, 1975. Levy was accordingly made by the City Sherrif on certain personal properties of the Narciso couple amounting P4,090 & an auction was held on Mar. 7, 1975. Likewise, on February 12, 1975, the Sheriff of also made a levy on "all rights, interest, title, participation which the defendant Luis R. Narciso" may have over a parcel of residential land covered by TCT No. 120923 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City which parcel of land is allegedly the conjugal property of the spouses Luis R. Narciso and Josefina Salak Narciso. Auction date for the real estate property was set for Mar. 25, 1975. G-Tractors won all thsese auctions. Luis entered into another agreement (a contract of lease over the affosaid property) w/ G-Tractors, wherein he would pay P1,000 monthly rental fee. Luis paid P12,000 for 1year rental. Mar. 31, 1975 Narciso couple filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of levy on the residential property on the ground that it is a conjugal property. Luis entered into a contract w/ G-Tractor which she was not informed of and which she did not benefit from. Also the Sherrifs sale clearly stated that only propertys under Luis Narciso would be sold. Lastly she could not be bound by the judgment rendered in said case and, consequently, the writ of attachment and the consequent writ of execution which levied on Lot No. 1258-F, together with its existing improvements, are null and void insofar as her ONE-HALF () interest in said properties is concerned. G-Tracors moved to have a transfer of certificate, which Luis opposed their motion on aacount of his complaint to nullify the said auction of the said land. RTC granted G-Tractors petition, Luis moved to reconsider, Judge dismissed his motion. A motion for a preliminary injuction was filed by Luis, which was also dismissed. On Oct. 2, 1976 Narcisio Couple filed a petition for certiorari w/ preliminary injuction before the C.A. C.A. reversed RTC decision.

G-Tractors v C.A.

Issue: Whether or not the judgment debt of private respondent Luis R. Narciso is a conjugal debt for which the conjugal
partnership property can be held answerable. Held: Yes. The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership and as long as he believes he is doing right to his family, he should not be made to suffer and answer alone. So that, if he incurs an indebtedness in the legitimate pursuit of his career or profession or suffers losses in a legitimate business, the conjugal partnership must equally bear the indebtedness and the losses, unless he deliberately acted to the prejudice of his family. Such is the nature of the judgment debt of private respondent Luis R. Narciso to petitioner. Consequently, the conjugal partnership of gains of private respondents Narcisos, must answer for the same. Necessarily the sale at public auction by the Sheriff of Quezon belonging to the conjugal partnership of gains of the private respondents Narcisos in order to satisfy the judgment debt of the private respondent Luis R. Narciso with petitioner, was validly and legally made in accordance with law. The noninclusion of the herein petitioners wife as a party-defendant in Civil Case No. 7678 is immaterial. There is no rule or law requiring that in a suit against the husband to enforce an obligation, either pertaining to him alone or one chargeable against the conjugal partnership, the defendant husband must be joined by his wife.