View full case

SPS. ROBERTO BUADO v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for annulment of certificate of sale and damages filed by Romulo Nicol against Spouses Roberto and Venus Buado and the deputy sheriff. The complaint alleged that the defendants executed on respondent's property without exhausting the personal properties of Erlinda Nicol and that there was no proper publication and posting of the notice of sale. The case was initially assigned to Branch 21 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite.

The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and that they had acted on the basis of a valid writ of execution. The RTC dismissed respondent's complaint, ruling that Branch 19 had jurisdiction over the case. Respondent appealed the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that Branch 21 had jurisdiction.

Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals. As a result, they filed a petition for certiorari, claiming that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in its decision.

ISSUES:

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

  2. Whether Branch 21 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite, has jurisdiction over the complaint for annulment of the certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction against petitioners and the deputy sheriff.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the husband of the judgment debtor may file an independent action to protect the conjugal property subject to execution if the obligation of the wife did not redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

  2. Yes, Branch 21 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite, has jurisdiction over the complaint for annulment of the certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction, since the execution of the conjugal property of the husband, who is deemed a stranger to the suit, was improper.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Doctrine of Third-Party Claim under Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court: A third-party claimant may vindicate their claim to the property by filing a separate action, independent of the main case where the writ of execution was issued.

  2. Conjugal Partnership Liability: Under Article 122 of the Family Code, payment of personal debts contracted by either the husband or the wife shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.

  3. Jurisdiction of the Court that Issued the Writ of Execution: Any flaw in the implementation of the writ of execution by the implementing sheriff must be brought before the court issuing the writ of execution.

  4. Personal Obligation and Conjugal Property: Conjugal property cannot be held liable for the personal obligation contracted by one spouse unless some benefit or advantage is shown to have accrued to the conjugal partnership.