Case Digest: Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) Inc. vs. Court Of Appeals And Alejo M. Vinluan

G.R. No. 102692   23 September 1996

PANGANIBAN, J.

FACTS:

On several occasions in 1982, the defendant, Delilah Vinluan, purchased products of Johnson & Johnson, as she was also engaged in the business of retailing Johnson products, among others.  The defendants, under the name and style of “Vinluan Enterprises,” thus incurred an obligation of P235,880.89 for which she issued seven Philippine Banking Corporation checks of varying amounts and due dates.  However, the checks were dishonoured for having been drawn against insufficient funds.  Several extensions were given to the spouses to settle the obligation.  On 05 January 1983, the defendant spouses made a partial payment of P5,000.00, but made no further payments afterwards.  The trial court found that Alejo Vinluan, had no privity of contract, whether direct or indirect, regarding those obligations incurred by his wife, as he only became a co-owner of Vinluan Enterprises after the obligations involved in this action had been incurred by Delilah.  In addition, said obligations were contracted without the husband’s knowledge or consent, and that the conjugal partnership never derived benefit therefrom.

The trial court decided that Alejo should not be held liable for the obligations incurred by his wife without his knowledge or consent.  However, when notices of levy on execution were issued, these covered not only Delilah’s exclusive or paraphernal properties, but also the real and personal properties of the conjugal partnership of the spouses Vinluan. This has caused Alejo to file a third-party claim, which was denied by the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the order of the trial court denying private respondent’s third-party claim and motion to quash levy on execution in effect amended the dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision which had long become final and executory.

HELD:

NO, THE TRIAL COURT CANNOT, IN THE GUISE OF DECIDING THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIM, REVERSE ITS FINAL DECISION.

In order to bind the conjugal partnership and its properties, the law provides that the debts and obligations contracted must be for the benefit of the conjugal partnership; and that the husband must consent to his wife’s engaging in business.  The text of the trial court’s decision points to no other person liable but Delilah Vinluan, and in fact made a rather lengthy discussion on the exemption from liability of the conjugal partnership; hence, there can be no ambiguity to speak of in the decision.  And even more clearly, the body of the decision of the trial court expressly exempted private respondent from liability by categorically ruling that “the defendant-husband cannot, together, with the co-defendant legally be made liable for the obligations contracted by the wife.”