ANSALDO v.

SHERIFF Nature: Action to declare the execution levied by the sheriff null and void on the ground that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership Ponente: Abad Santos, J. Date: February 19, 1937 DOCTRINE: The fruits of the paraphernal property which become part of the assets of the conjugal partnership are not liable for the payment of personal obligations of the husband, unless it be proved that such obligations were productive of some benefit to the family. FACTS: Relevant Provisions: Article 1408 of the Old Civil Code in relation to Article 1385, first paragraph: Article 1408. The fruits of the paraphernal property cannot be subject to the payment of personal obligations of the husband, unless it be proved that such obligation were productive of some benefit to the family. Article 1385. The fruit of the paraphernal property form part of the assets of the conjugal partnership and are subject to the payment of the debts and expenses of the spouses. X X X Upon the express guaranty of the appellant Fidelity & Surety Company of the Philippine Islands, the Philippine Trust Company granted Romarico Agcaoili a credit in current account not to exceed at any one time P20,000. Appellee Angel Ansaldo, in turn, agreed to indemnify the surety company for any and all losses and damages that it might sustain by reason of having guaranteed Agcaoili's obligations. Agcaoili defaulted, and the surety company, as his guarantor, paid the Philippine Trust Company. Thereafter, the surety company brought an action against the appellee Angel Ansaldo for recovery of sum of money, and after obtaining a judgment on its favor, caused the sheriff of the City of Manila to levy on the joint savings account of Spouses Angel and Margarita Ansaldo. Appellees instituted an action against the appellants in the CFI to have the execution levied by the sheriff declared null and void. The court below granted the relief prayed for and sentenced the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the appellees. ISSUE: WON the obligation of Angel Agcaoli may be enforced by the Sheriff against the joint savings account of the spouses

RULING: NO. Since there is a failure to prove that the obligation of the husband was produced benefit to the family, it cannot be charged against the conjugal partnership. The sum in controversy was derived from the paraphernal property of the appellee, Margarita hence it forms part of the conjugal partnership under Article 1401 of the Old Civil Code. Construing the two relevant provisions together, it seems clear that the fruits of the paraphernal property which become part of the assets of the conjugal partnership are not liable for the payment of personal obligations of the husband, unless it be proved that such obligations were productive of some benefit to the family. No attempt has been made to prove that the obligations contracted by the appellee, Angel, were productive of some benefit to his family. It is, however, claimed that, as the sum of P636.80 has become the property of the conjugal partnership, at least one-half thereof was property levied on execution, as the share of the appellee Angel Ansaldo. This contention is without merit. 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. (Civil Code, arts. 1392 and 1426.)