G.R. No. 42213 ; September 30, 1935
In re Intestate estate of the deceased Manuel Tinio. EULOGIO CRESPO, in his capacity as judicial guardian of the persons and properties of the minors Silveria Tinio, Martin Tinio, Vivencio Tinio and Dolores Tinio, appellant, vs. MARIANO Q. TINIO, MANUEL Q. TINIO, JR., BERTILA Q. TINIO and CATALINA C. TINIO, appellees.

FACTS

Manuel Tinio died intestate, survived by children from three marriages and a recognized natural child. He left properties acquired during three successive conjugal partnerships and separate property. At his death, he owed debts totaling P108,314.56, all contracted during his third marriage. Part of this debt (P70,822) was secured by mortgages on specific properties (including his separate property and property from the first and third marriages). The remainder (P37,492.56) was unsecured. The administrator paid all debts using the general income from the entire estate, including proceeds from properties of the first two conjugal partnerships and the deceased’s separate property, with the consent of the adult heirs. The guardian of the minor children from the third marriage appealed the lower court’s order approving a project of partition that charged the entire debt solely against the properties of the third conjugal partnership.

ISSUE

1. What properties of the estate should be charged with the payment of the secured mortgage indebtedness to the Philippine National Bank?
2. What properties of the estate should be charged with the payment of the unsecured indebtedness?

RULING

1. For the secured mortgage debt (P70,822), the properties of the third conjugal partnership are primarily liable. Under the Civil Code, debts contracted by the husband during the marriage for the benefit of the conjugal partnership are chargeable to that partnership’s assets. The fact that the mortgagee bank did not present its claim to the committee on claims and appraisal is immaterial, as it relied on its security. The debt was contracted during the third marriage, and there was no evidence the borrowed money was used to improve the mortgaged properties themselves. Therefore, the debt is chargeable against the third conjugal partnership properties, not exclusively against the specific mortgaged properties.

2. For the unsecured debt (P37,492.56), the third conjugal partnership should not be held exclusively responsible. While this debt was also contracted during the third marriage and would ordinarily be chargeable to that partnership, the special circumstances alter the case. The unsecured creditors did not present their claims to the committee as required by law. The administrator paid them using the general assets of the whole estate with the consent of the adult heirs. The minor children from the third marriage, however, did not and could not consent. Since the payments were made from the general estate assets (including properties from prior partnerships and separate property) with adult heir consent, and the minors were prejudiced by not having the opportunity to oppose the claims through proper legal channels, the burden of this unsecured debt should not fall solely on the third conjugal partnership. The project of partition must be amended accordingly.

The appealed order was modified regarding the unsecured debt and affirmed as to the secured debt.

AI Generated by Armztrong.