Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Buado vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 145222
Decision Date
Apr 24, 2009
Spouses sued Erlinda for slander damages; conjugal property levied. Husband filed separate action; SC ruled conjugal property not liable for wife's criminal obligation, upheld jurisdiction of separate court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145222)

Background of the Case

The factual background reveals that on April 30, 1984, the Buados initiated legal proceedings against Erlinda Nicol, resulting in a decision by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite, on April 6, 1987, which ordered Erlinda to pay a total of P40,000 in damages. The ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately became final and executory on March 5, 1992. Following this, the RTC issued a writ of execution on October 14, 1992, which initiated further actions to collect the awarded damages.

Execution of Judgment

Due to Erlinda Nicol's apparent insufficiency in personal properties to satisfy the judgment debt, a notice of levy on real property was directed to her, leading to the auctioning of the property. The Buados participated in this auction and were declared the highest bidders, subsequently receiving a certificate of sale for the property. However, Romulo Nicol contested this sale, asserting that the personal properties of Erlinda had not been properly exhausted before proceeding to levy on real estate, and claimed that his property was unjustly sold at too low a price.

Jurisdictional Issues

Romulo Nicol filed a complaint in RTC Branch 21 seeking the annulment of the certificate of sale and damages. The petitioners moved to dismiss this action, arguing that Branch 19, where the original judgment was issued, retained authority over the enforcement actions. The trial court agreed, concluding that any issues regarding execution should be addressed to the original court.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, asserting that Branch 21 holds jurisdiction over Nicol's complaint. The Buados' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.

Legal Principles and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court clarified that a petition for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction rather than erroneous judgment calls. The core issue raised was whether Romulo Nicol, as husband of the judgment debtor, qualified as a "third party" entitled to file an independent action. The Court referenced Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which governs third-party claims related to property subject to execution.

Determination of "Third-Party" Status

To qualify as a "third party," the individual must not be an agent or a party to the case. Citing precedents, the Court noted that Romulo Nicol is not a "stranger" to the case, as the obligation was incurred by Erlinda in connection to their conjugal partnership. Therefore, his claim was deemed an assertion of an interest in conjugal property that could not be automatically charged with personal debts of the

...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.