Title
Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Mar Tierra Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 143382
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2006
Mar Tierra Corp. secured a loan with indemnity agreements; conjugal property not liable as obligation didn't benefit the partnership. SC upheld CA ruling.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143382)

Factual Background

On May 7, 1980, Mar Tierra Corporation, represented by its president, Wilfrido C. Martinez, applied for a credit accommodation of ₱12,000,000 with Security Bank and Trust Company. Petitioner approved this application, which was secured by an indemnity agreement executed by individual respondents Martinez, Lacson, and Lopa. The credit line was amended to ₱14,000,000 on July 2, 1980, leading to a new indemnity agreement. Subsequently, the corporation drew ₱9,952,000 from this credit line and, despite initial repayments, defaulted on the remaining balance after ceasing operations in 1984.

Procedural History

In light of the unpaid balance, Security Bank filed a complaint for a sum of money with a request for preliminary attachment against Mar Tierra Corporation and the individual respondents in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, which was logged as Civil Case No. 3947. Following the legal proceedings, the RTC issued a writ of attachment on the real properties of the Martinez couple. The RTC later ruled that while Mar Tierra Corporation and Martinez were jointly liable for ₱5,304,000, the obligation contracted by Martinez did not benefit his family. Consequently, the attachment on their conjugal property was lifted.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Security Bank's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) resulted in the affirmation of the RTC's decision. It maintained that the amount availed of by Mar Tierra Corporation was only ₱9,952,000, which was acknowledged by the bank in its complaint. The CA expressed that the factual findings of the RTC were conclusive as they were not based on mere legal interpretations but on established facts.

Issued Raised

The central question before the courts was whether the conjugal partnership of Martinez and his spouse could be held liable for the indemnity agreement signed by Martinez for the loan obtained by the corporation, which was perceived as a third-party benefit.

Legal Principles

According to Article 161(1) of the Civil Code, a conjugal partnership is liable for obligations contracted by the husband if they benefit the partnership. Previous rulings (e.g., Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. de Garcia and Ayala Investment and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals) delineate that obligations for the benefit of a third party do not equate to obligations of the conjugal partnership unless it can be proven that the partnership derived some benefit from the transaction. This underscores the burden of proof falling on the creditor to show that the conjugal partnership should be liable.

Court's Conclusion

The court held that since the credit line agreement and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.