Spouses Buado vs Court of Appeals and Nicol

GR No. 143286, April 14, 2004

FACTS:

 On 30 April 1984, Spouses Roberto and Venus Buado (petitioners) filed a

complaint for damages against Erlinda Nicol (Erlinda) with Branch 19 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite based on civil liability arising
from the criminal offense of slander filed against her by petitioners.
 The trial court rendered a decision ordering Erlinda to pay damages
particularly thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos as moral damages, five
thousand (P5,000.00) pesos as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, another
five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages and the cost of suit.
 Said decision was affirmed on appeal by the CA and it became final and
executory.
 On 14 October 1992, the trial court issued a writ of execution commanding
that of the goods and chattels of the defendant Erlinda Nicol, or from her
estates or legal heirs to satisfy judgment.
 But the properties of Nicol was not enough to satisfy judgment and as such the
Deputy Sheriff issued a notice of levy on real property on execution addressed
to the Register of Deeds of Cavite.
 But two days before the public auction sale which was to be held on January
29, 1993, an affidavit of third-party claim of Arnulfo F. Fulo was received by
the deputy sheriff. The petitioners put up a sheriff’s indemnity bond and the
sale proceeded with the petitioners as the highest bidder.
 On February 4, 1993, a certificate of sale was issued in favor of the
petitioners. Almost one year later, on February 2 1994 Respondent Romulo
Nicol, the husband of Erlinda Nicol filed a complaint for annulment of the
certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction agains the
petitioners and the deputy sheriff
 Respondent, who is plaintiff herein, alleged that the defendants, now
petitioners, connived and directly levied upon and execute his real property
without exhausting the personal properties of Erlinda Nicol. Respondent
averred that there was no proper publication and posting of the notice of sale.
Furthermore, respondent claimed that his property which was valued at
P500,000.00 was only sold at a "very low price" of P51,685.00, whereas the
judgment obligation of Erlinda Nicol was only P40,000.00

ISSUES:

 WON the wife's criminal liability is chargeable to the conjugal partnership

 WON the husband of the judgment debtor may file an independent action
to protect the conjugal property subject to execution.

HELD:

 On the first issue: NO, the wife's criminal liability is chargeable to the
conjugal partnership. 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.
 It cannot be concluded that the civil obligation arising from the crime of
slander committed by Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.
 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
 On the second issue: YES, the husband may properly file a third party claim in
the case at bar since the wife’s criminal liability is not chargeable to the
conjugal property but on her separate property.
 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is

AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.