Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 537 views

    Alipio Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    grego centillas
    The document discusses a case involving the subleasing of a fishpond by Romeo Jaring to the spouses Alipio and Manuel. When the second installment was not fully paid, Jaring filed a collection case against the spouses. Purita Alipio, whose husband had passed away, argued she should not be liable. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the obligation was joint, not solidary, so each couple was only liable for half the debt; and (2) the surviving spouse is not directly liable, as claims must be made through the proceedings for the settlement of the conjugal estate. As a result, the complaint against Purita Alipio was dismissed, but the Manu

    Copyright:

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

    Alipio Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    grego centillas
    537 views1 page
    The document discusses a case involving the subleasing of a fishpond by Romeo Jaring to the spouses Alipio and Manuel. When the second installment was not fully paid, Jaring filed a collection case against the spouses. Purita Alipio, whose husband had passed away, argued she should not be liable. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the obligation was joint, not solidary, so each couple was only liable for half the debt; and (2) the surviving spouse is not directly liable, as claims must be made through the proceedings for the settlement of the conjugal estate. As a result, the complaint against Purita Alipio was dismissed, but the Manu

    Original Description:

    alipio vs ca

    Original Title

    Alipio vs CA

    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 a case involving the subleasing of a fishpond by Romeo Jaring to the spouses Alipio and Manuel. When the second installment was not fully paid, Jaring filed a collection case against the spouses. Purita Alipio, whose husband had passed away, argued she should not be liable. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the obligation was joint, not solidary, so each couple was only liable for half the debt; and (2) the surviving spouse is not directly liable, as claims must be made through the proceedings for the settlement of the conjugal estate. As a result, the complaint against Purita Alipio was dismissed, but the Manu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    537 views1 page

    Alipio Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    grego centillas
    The document discusses a case involving the subleasing of a fishpond by Romeo Jaring to the spouses Alipio and Manuel. When the second installment was not fully paid, Jaring filed a collection case against the spouses. Purita Alipio, whose husband had passed away, argued she should not be liable. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the obligation was joint, not solidary, so each couple was only liable for half the debt; and (2) the surviving spouse is not directly liable, as claims must be made through the proceedings for the settlement of the conjugal estate. As a result, the complaint against Purita Alipio was dismissed, but the Manu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ALIPIO V. CA [G.R. No. 134100.

    September 29, 2000]

    FACTS:

    Respondent Romeo Jaring was the lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Bataan for a period of 5 years ending on September
    12, 1990. On June 19, 1987, he subleased the fishpond for the remaining period of his lease to the spouses Placido
    and Purita Alipio and the spouses Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel .

    The 2nd installment will fall due on June 30, 1989. The 1st installment was duly paid but the 2nd installment was
    only partially fulfilled leaving a balance of Php50,600.00. The sub lessees failed to settle the remaining balance despite
    repeated demands. This prompted private respondent Jaring to file a complaint on Oct. 13, 1989 against the Alipio and
    Manuel spouses for the collection of the said amount.

    Purita Alipio moved to dismiss on the grounds of his husbands Placido Alipio, died on Dec. 1, 1988.

    The RTC and CA denied the petition of Purita Alipio citing that where a husband and wife bound themselves jointly
    and severally, in case of death, the liability of the surviving spouse is independent and separate so that she may be sued
    for the whole debt.

    ISSUE:

    (1) Whether a creditor can sue the surviving spouse for the collection of a debt which is owed by the conjugal partnership
    of gains, or

    (2) whether such claim must be filed in proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the decedent.

    HELD:

    No. Surviving spouse is not liable. The conjugal partnership of gains is liable.

    1. The obligation is joint.

    "• Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does
    not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire
    compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law
    or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. (1137a)"

    Since the law or the nature or the wording of the obligation does not appear to be solidary the an obligation is presumed
    to be only joint, meaning the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each debt being considered
    distinct from one another. The obligation of the Manuel and Alipio spouses is chargeable against their respective conjugal
    partnerships, the unpaid balance of should be divided into two so that each couple is liable to pay only half of the amount

    2.Second The Surviving spouse is not liable for any payment of indebtedness chargeable against the conjugal partnership
    . Instead, the claim must be made in the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property. The
    inventory of the Alipios' conjugal property is necessary before any claim chargeable against it can be paid.

    As a result the supreme court ordered the spouses Manuel to pay half of the amount plus the attorney's fees and the costs
    of the suit. The complaint against the surviving spouse is dismissed..

    IF I am Romeo Jaring i will file a claim against the proceedings for the liquidation and settlement of the conjugal property,
    so i can claim the share of the Alipio spouse.

    You might also like