Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Marriage Case Digests 58-59

    Uploaded by

    Sylvan Cureg
    The document discusses two court cases regarding business engagements and contracts entered into by married women. The first case discusses whether a husband consented to his wife's business and if their conjugal property could be liable for her business debts. The second case discusses whether a husband can be held jointly liable for a contract entered by his wife for her business.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marriage Case Digests 58-59

    Uploaded by

    Sylvan Cureg
    10 views2 pages
    The document discusses two court cases regarding business engagements and contracts entered into by married women. The first case discusses whether a husband consented to his wife's business and if their conjugal property could be liable for her business debts. The second case discusses whether a husband can be held jointly liable for a contract entered by his wife for her business.

    Original Description:

    Marriage Case Digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses two court cases regarding business engagements and contracts entered into by married women. The first case discusses whether a husband consented to his wife's business and if their conjugal property could be liable for her business debts. The second case discusses whether a husband can be held jointly liable for a contract entered by his wife for her business.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views2 pages

    Marriage Case Digests 58-59

    Uploaded by

    Sylvan Cureg
    The document discusses two court cases regarding business engagements and contracts entered into by married women. The first case discusses whether a husband consented to his wife's business and if their conjugal property could be liable for her business debts. The second case discusses whether a husband can be held jointly liable for a contract entered by his wife for her business.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ong v. CA, GR 63025, Nov. 29, 1991 [Per J.

    Paras, Second Division]

    Issue: Whether or not Ramon consented to Teodora’s business engagement

    Facts:

    Teodora Ong is the wife of Ramon Ong, petitioner. She conducted her own logging business. In
    furtherance of said business, she loaned 2,827.83 from Francisco Boix, private respondent. Due to
    mismanagement, she defaulted on her obligation. Boix filed a complaint, based on the promissory notes
    issued by Teodora. Judgment was rendered in favor of Boix, he then moved to execute the judgment.

    The Sheriff of Camarines Norte (private co-respondent) levied and attached a parcel of land. An
    auction sale was held and Boix was adjudged the highest bidder and a writ of possession was issued.

    Ramon filed a motion with the CFI of Manila to quash the writ of possession and was denied. He
    then brought the case to the CA to annul the auction sale, alleging that the property is conjugal and thus
    could not be held liable for personal debts contracted by the wife.

    The CA found that the subject property is paraphernal property, it was declared in the name of
    Teodora Ong, while the house erected thereon was declared in the name of Ramon Ong and Teodora
    Ong.

    Ruling: Assuming for the sake of argument that the property in dispute is conjugal, the same may still be
    held liable for the debts of the wife in this case. Under Art. 117 of the Civil Code, the wife may engage in
    business although the husband may object (but subject to certain conditions). It is clear from the records
    that the wife was engaged in the logging business with the husband's knowledge and apparently
    without any objection on his part. The acts of the husband show that he gave his implied consent to the
    wife's engagement in business. Whatever profits are earned by the wife from her business go to the
    conjugal partnership. It would only be just and equitable that the obligations contracted by the wife in
    connection with her business may also be chargeable not only against her paraphernal property but also
    against the conjugal property of the spouses.
    Go v. CA, GR 114791, May 29, 1997 [Per J. Romero, Second Division]

    Issue: Whether or not Alex can be held solidarily liable with his wife Nancy

    Facts:

    In 1981, Hermogenes Ong and Jane Ong contracted with Nancy Go for the latter to film their
    wedding. After the wedding, the newlywed inquired about their wedding video but Nancy Go said it’s
    not yet ready. She advised them to return for the wedding video after their honeymoon. The newlywed
    did so but only to find out that Nancy Go can no longer produce the said wedding video because the
    copy has been erased.

    The Ongs then sued Nancy Go for damages. Nancy’s husband, Alex Go, was impleaded. The trial
    court ruled in favor of the spouses Ong and awarded in their favor, among others, P75k in moral
    damages. In her defense on appeal, Nancy Go said: that they erased the video tape because as per the
    terms of their agreement, the spouses are supposed to claim their wedding tape within 30 days after the
    wedding, however, the spouses neglected to get said wedding tape because they only made their claim
    after two months; that her husband should not be impleaded in this suit.

    Ruling: Concerning the issue that Nancy Go’s husband should not be included in the suit, the court
    found merit in this argument. Under Article 73 of the Family Code, the wife may exercise any profession,
    occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. In this case, it was shown that it
    was only Nancy Go who entered into a contract with the spouses Ong hence only she (Nancy) is liable to
    pay the damages awarded in favor of the Ongs, pursuant to the principle that contracts produce effect
    only as between the parties who execute them.

    You might also like