Title
Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Santos
Case
G.R. No. L-8315
Decision Date
Mar 18, 1957
Apolinar Santos contested personal liability for a conjugal loan, but the court ruled he was liable since he secured it individually, allowing the bank to sue him directly.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131803)

Background and Loan Agreement

On March 2, 1949, Apolinar A. Santos and Clara D. Palanca secured a loan of PHP 7,000 from the Philippine Bank of Commerce, which was to be repaid within 90 days. The agreement stipulated that in the event of collection through an attorney, the debtors would owe 25% of the amount due as attorney's fees.

Subsequent Events and Filing of Action

On March 14, 1953, Marciana C. Palanca, the appellant's wife, passed away, and Santos was appointed as administrator of her estate in Special Proceedings No. 1724 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. On May 14, 1954, the Philippine Bank of Commerce filed a lawsuit against Santos seeking to recover PHP 2,910.49, which represented the unpaid balance of the loan, along with accrued interest and attorney's fees.

Appellant's Defense

Santos admitted his indebtedness but contended that as the loan was incurred during the existence of the conjugal partnership with his deceased wife, the claim should be settled through the probate proceedings for her estate. He argued that the bank should have filed its claim in those proceedings rather than directly suing him.

Court’s Findings and Ruling

The Court ruled against the appellant, emphasizing that although the conjugal partnership benefited from the loan, Santos did not act as the administrator of the partnership when securing the loan and did not disclose his marital status. Consequently, he could not invoke the protection of the conjugal partnership to shield himself from personal liability. The ruling stated that the bank could pursue the claim directly against Santos, regardless of the partnership’s responsibility for the debt.

Legal Principles Involved

The decision referenced relevant procedural rules in the Civil Code, specifically Section 2 of Rule 75 and Section 1 of Rule 87, emphasizing their inapplicability to the case at hand because the loan was personally secured by the appellant. The ruling clarified that creditors may pursue collection against the individual borrower despite the existence of a conjugal partners

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.