Case Digest (G.R. No. 102692)
Facts:
Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Alejo M. Vinluan, G.R. No. 102692, September 23, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. (petitioner) sued spouses Delilah A. Vinluan and Alejo M. Vinluan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 137, in Civil Case No. 4186 for collection of an outstanding account arising from goods purchased by Delilah under the trade name “Vinluan Enterprises.” After trial the RTC rendered judgment on February 5, 1985 declaring Delilah solely liable to pay P242,482.40 with interest and attorney’s fees, and dismissed the counterclaim; the RTC expressly found there was no privity between petitioner and the husband and that the conjugal partnership did not benefit from the indebtedness.
During execution, a writ of execution was issued (filed February 3, 1989) but the sheriff’s two notices of levy dated February 8, 1989 covered not only Delilah’s exclusive/paraphernal properties but also alleged conjugal assets. The husband thereupon filed third‑party claims (challenging the levy on conjugal property) and later moved to quash the levy (July 1, 1989). The RTC, by order dated July 24, 1989, fixed the value of levied personal properties at P300,000 and denied the third‑party claim and motion to quash, ruling (contrary to its earlier decision) that the husband’s consent to his wife’s business was evident and the conjugal partnership was subsidiarily liable; a subsequent RTC order of October 4, 1989 denied reconsideration.
The husband appealed to the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division). The CA granted his petition in CA‑G.R. SP No. 19178, set aside the RTC orders of July 24 and October 4, 1989, and declared the notices of levy null and void. Petitioner filed...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court, in denying the husband’s third‑party claim and motion to quash the levy during execution, impermissibly modify or reverse its own final and executory judgment?
- May conjugal property be levied upon and the husband held liable for debts adjudged against the wife alone where the trial court’s final decision declared the wife solely lia...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)