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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 676 views

    Home Savings Loan Bank V Dailo Digest

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    The document discusses a case regarding a property that was mortgaged without the consent of both spouses. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Yes, Article 124 of the Family Code applies, which provides that any transaction regarding conjugal property requires the consent of both spouses. 2) No, the bank did not adequately prove that the loan proceeds benefited the conjugal partnership, as required by Article 121 for the partnership to be liable for the debt. Since the husband was named as the sole owner, the property could not be considered conjugal. 3) Therefore, the mortgage transaction was void due to the lack of the wife's consent as required by Article 124.

    Copyright:

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

    Home Savings Loan Bank V Dailo Digest

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    676 views1 page
    The document discusses a case regarding a property that was mortgaged without the consent of both spouses. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Yes, Article 124 of the Family Code applies, which provides that any transaction regarding conjugal property requires the consent of both spouses. 2) No, the bank did not adequately prove that the loan proceeds benefited the conjugal partnership, as required by Article 121 for the partnership to be liable for the debt. Since the husband was named as the sole owner, the property could not be considered conjugal. 3) Therefore, the mortgage transaction was void due to the lack of the wife's consent as required by Article 124.

    Original Description:

    Dailo case

    Original Title

    Home Savings Loan Bank v Dailo Digest Docx

    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 regarding a property that was mortgaged without the consent of both spouses. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Yes, Article 124 of the Family Code applies, which provides that any transaction regarding conjugal property requires the consent of both spouses. 2) No, the bank did not adequately prove that the loan proceeds benefited the conjugal partnership, as required by Article 121 for the partnership to be liable for the debt. Since the husband was named as the sole owner, the property could not be considered conjugal. 3) Therefore, the mortgage transaction was void due to the lack of the wife's consent as required by Article 124.

    Copyright:

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

    Home Savings Loan Bank V Dailo Digest

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    The document discusses a case regarding a property that was mortgaged without the consent of both spouses. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Yes, Article 124 of the Family Code applies, which provides that any transaction regarding conjugal property requires the consent of both spouses. 2) No, the bank did not adequately prove that the loan proceeds benefited the conjugal partnership, as required by Article 121 for the partnership to be liable for the debt. Since the husband was named as the sole owner, the property could not be considered conjugal. 3) Therefore, the mortgage transaction was void due to the lack of the wife's consent as required by Article 124.

    Copyright:

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

    [G.R. No. 153802. March 11, 2005.

    ]  Whether or not payment of the principal obligation on the


    mortgage should be made by the conjugal partnership.
    HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK, petitioner, vs.
    MIGUELA C. DAILO, respondent. HELD:

     Yes. The Article 124 of the Family Code will apply. Basically, Article
    493 provides for the co-owner of a property to have full ownership
    PONENTE: TINGA, J.: of his part and therefore he may dispose of it as he wants. Because
    FACTS: Marcelino was such co-owner, he can do what he wants with the
    property, like mortgage it. On the other hand, Article 124 provides
     Miguela and Marcelino Dailo were married in 1967. They for the joint administration of conjugal properties. HSLB says that
    bought a house and lot during their marriage in San Pablo City, the framers could not have intended that the co-owner spouse
    Laguna but the absolute deed of sale was executed only in cannot exercise his full rights because of the bar in Article 124.
    favor of Marcelino and excluded his wife. There is no marriage settlement between Miguela and her dead
     In 1993, Marcelino executed a special power of attorney to spouse, so their property regime is automatically conjugal
    authorize a certain Lilibeth Gesmundo to obtain a loan from partnership of gains or CPG. If there is no consent as to the action
    petitioner bank HSLB with the house and lot as security. The of one spouse with regards to the administration of the property,
    the same is void.
    property was mortgaged and the loan was approved in
     In this case, No. The HSLB says payment of the principal obligation
    the amount of P300,000. Miguela did not know about this at on the mortgage should be made by the conjugal partnership
    all because the loan redounded to the benefit of the family under
     When Gesmundo failed to pay the loan in full upon maturity, Article 121 of the Family Code. But the burden of proof lies with
    the spouses' property was extra judicially foreclosed, sold, and the HSLB, on the one who alleges that the mortgage benefited the
    bought by petitioner bank. Because it was not redeemed after conjugal partnership. HSLB alleges that the loan was used to
    one year, the bank consolidated their ownership over it. finance the construction of housing units but it was not adequately
     Marcelino died and it was only then that Miguela knew of the proven. Also, since they kept on saying that Marcelino owned the
    mortgage, foreclosure and sale of their conjugal property. property in his individual capacity, it cannot be admitted that the
     The CA ruled that Art 124 of the Family Code is controlling in money was used for his family.
    the case because it provided for the nullity of any encumbrance
    or disposition without the knowledge and consent of both
    spouses.

    ISSUES:

     Whether or not the Article 124 of the Family Code is in


    effect in this case or is it the Article 493 of the Civil Code.

    You might also like