Ansaldo v Sheriff of Manila (Article 89)

G.R. No. L-43257 February 19, 1937

Facts:

Appellee Angel Ansaldo stood as guarantor for Romarico Agcaoili. He promised to indemnify the Surety Company for any damage that they may incur from Agcaoilis credits. Agcaoili defaulted and thus the Surety Company was forced to pay the Philippine Trust Bank the amount of 19,065.17 pesos. The Sheriff of City of Manila levied on a property that belongs to the conjugal property of Angel and Margarita Ansaldo. The spouse s brought an action to the Court of First Instance of Manila and the court ruled in their favor to the extent that the Sheriff should not have deducted from the same property and that the Surety Company should pay the spouses the amount of 636.80 pesos. Petitioner contends that he entitled to half of such payment.

Issue: Whether or not the Angel Ansaldo is entitled

to half of 636.80 it

being part of the conjugal property of spouses Ansaldo. Held: No, The right of the husband to one-half of the property of the conjugal partnership does not vest until the dissolution of the marriage when the conjugal partnership is also dissolved.

Ahern v Julian (Article 93)

G.R. No. L-13952 February 6, 1919

Facts:

The objector Toribio Julian a judgment creditor claiming the sum of P3,578.80 under his judgment, opposed the discharged of William Ahern (Petitioner), on the ground that a certain parcel of land, registered to the wife of the petitioner together with a rice mill constructed thereon and the business conducted in the mill, are in fact bienes gananciales (marital community property), and as such subject to the payment of the husband's debts, and therefore improperly omitted from the schedule filed by him at the institution of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that these properties are separately owned by his wife, hence not included in the payment of his debt. However, spouses Ahern cannot produce sufficient evidence to prove their claim

Issue: Whether or not marital community property is presumed in the absence

of evidence contrary to it.

Held: Yes, the evidence submitted in the case at bar is wholly insufficient to
overcome the statutory presumption as to the communal character of the Cabanatuan property held in the name of the wife of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner should be required to include the Cabanatuan property in his schedule of property subject to the payment of his debts.

Sabalones v CA (Article 96)