Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

GOITIA VS CAMPOS-RUEDA

WONG VS IAC

35 PHIL 252, GR NO. 11263

GR NO. 70082, AUGUST 19, 1991

FACTS:

FACTS:

Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos


y Rueda, respondent, were married on January 7, 1915
and had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino Manila.
They stayed together for a month before petitioner
returned to her parents home. Goitia filed a complaint
against respondent for support outside the conjugal
home. It was alleged that respondent demanded her to
perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital
organs. Petitioner refused to perform such acts and
demanded her husband other than the legal and valid
cohabitation. Since Goitia kept on refusing, respondent
maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon
her lops, face and different body parts. The trial court
ruled in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia could
not compel her husband to support her except in the
conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree
granting her separation or divorce from respondent.
Goitia filed motion for review.

Romario Henson married Katrina on January 1964. They


had 3 children however, even during the early years of
their marriage, the spouses had been most of the time
living separately. During the marriage or on about
January 1971, the husband bought a parcel of land in
Angeles from his father using the money borrowed from
an officemate. Sometime in June 1972, Katrina entered
an agreement with Anita Chan where the latter
consigned the former pieces of jewelry valued at
P321,830.95. Katrina failed to return the same within
the 20 day period thus Anita demanded payment of their
value. Katrina issued in September 1972, check of
P55,000 which was dishonored due to lack of funds. The
spouses Anita Chan and Ricky Wong filed action for
collection of the sum of money against Katrina and her
husband Romarico. The reply with counterclaim filed
was only in behalf of Katrina. Trial court ruled in favor of
the Wongs then a writ of execution was thereafter issued
upon the 4 lots in Angeles City all in the name of
Romarico Henson married to Katrina Henson. 2 of the
lots were sold at public auction to Juanito Santos and the
other two with Leonardo Joson. A month before such
redemption, Romarico filed an action for annulment of
the decision including the writ and levy of execution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to
support her outside the conjugal home.

HELD:
The obligation on the part of the husband to support his
wife is created merely in the act of marriage. The law
provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the
wife, may fulfill the obligation either by paying her a
fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at
his option. However, this option given by law is not
absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade
or terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife
is driven away from the conjugal home because of his
wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was forced to
leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs
and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore
claim support from the husband for separate
maintenance even outside the conjugal home.

ISSUE:
WON debt of the wife without the knowledge of the
husband can be satisfied through the conjugal property.

HELD:
The spouses had in fact been separated when the wife
entered into the business deal with Anita. The husband
had nothing to do with the business transactions of
Katrina nor authorized her to enter into such. The
properties in Angeles were acquired during the marriage
with unclear proof where the husband obtained the
money to repay the loan. Hence, it is presumed to
belong in the conjugal partnership in the absence of
proof that they are exclusive property of the husband
and even though they had been living separately. A wife
may bind the conjugal partnership only when she
purchases things necessary for support of the family.
The writ of execution cannot be issued against Romarico
and the execution of judgments extends only over
properties belonging to the judgment debtor.
The
conjugal properties cannot answer for Katrinas
obligations as she exclusively incurred the latter without
the consent of her husband nor they did redound to the
benefit of the family.
There was also no evidence
submitted that the administration of the partnership had

been transferred to Katrina by Romarico before said


obligations were incurred. In as much as the decision
was void only in so far as Romarico and the conjugal
properties concerned, Spouses Wong may still execute
the debt against Katrina, personally and exclusively.