Facts:

The case revolves around Lourdes Mariano (Petitioner) and Daniel Sanchez (Respondent), with Esther Sanchez also involved as a party in the original suit. The events began when Esther Sanchez filed a complaint against Lourdes Mariano in the Court of First Instance in Caloocan City for the recovery of the value of ladies' ready-made dresses that were allegedly purchased and delivered to her. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued at Esther's request, backed by a bond from Veritas Insurance Company amounting to P11,000. This led to the seizure of Lourdes Mariano's property valued at approximately P15,000. Lourdes Mariano's motion to discharge the attachment was denied, prompting her to seek relief from the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ordered the trial court to receive evidence regarding the attachment's validity, which ultimately led to the conclusion that the attachment was improperly issued, resulting in its dissolution.

Following the trial...

Facts:

1. Origins of the Case: The case originated from a suit filed by Esther Sanchez against Lourdes Mariano in the Court of First Instance at Caloocan City for the recovery of the value of ladies' ready-made dresses allegedly purchased and delivered to Lourdes Mariano. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, leading to the seizure of Lourdes Mariano's property worth approximately P15,000.00.

2. Attachment and Trial: Lourdes Mariano's motion to discharge the attachment was denied, prompting her to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Trial Court later dissolved the attachment, finding it improperly issued. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a judgment in favor of Lourdes Mariano, who was awarded damages and attorney's fees.

3. Execution of Judgment: Esther Sanchez attempted to appeal the judgment, but Lourdes Mariano moved for immediate execution, which was granted. The sheriff garnished funds from Veritas Insurance Company and levied on conjugal property belonging to Esther Sanchez and her husband, Daniel Sanchez.

4. Interference by Daniel Sanchez: Daniel Sanchez, Esther's husband, filed a separate action in the Court of First Instance at Quezon City to annul the execution, claiming that the conjugal assets could not be used to satisfy his wife's obligations. He also sought a preliminary injunction to halt the auction sale of the levied property.

5. Appellate Proceedings: Lourdes Mariano filed a special civil action of certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which initially restrained the Quezon City Court but was later dismissed by the Eighth Division. Lourdes Mariano appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the liability of the conjugal partnership and the alleged interference by the Quezon City Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Conjugal Partnership Liability: Under the Civil Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for obligations contracted by either spouse for the benefit of the family. Since Esther Sanchez's business was conducted with her husband's consent and the income was used for family expenses, the conjugal assets were liable for her obligations.

2. Non-Interference Rule: Courts of equal jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other's processes, including the execution of judgments. Daniel Sanchez's claim regarding the conjugal property should have been raised in the Caloocan Court, not in a separate action in the Quezon City Court.

3. Proper Division Jurisdiction: The transfer of the case from the Seventh Division to the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals was in accordance with the court's rules, and the decision was made after proper deliberation. There was no impropriety in the Eighth Division's handling of the case.

WHEREFORE, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the dismissal of Daniel Sanchez's action in the Quezon City Court. Costs were imposed on the private respondents.