GR 102692; (September, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102692 September 23, 1996
JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALEJO M. VINLUAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Johnson & Johnson filed a collection suit against spouses Delilah and Alejo Vinluan for unpaid obligations arising from Delilah’s business, Vinluan Enterprises. The Regional Trial Court, after trial, rendered judgment solely against Delilah Vinluan. The court meticulously found that the debt was contracted by the wife alone, without the husband’s knowledge or consent, and that the conjugal partnership derived no benefit from the business, which had operated at a loss. The decision explicitly absolved the husband, Alejo Vinluan, from any liability.
Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued. The sheriff, however, levied upon not only the paraphernal properties of Delilah Vinluan but also on properties of the conjugal partnership. Alejo Vinluan filed a third-party claim and a motion to quash the levy, arguing that the execution on conjugal assets was improper since the judgment was against his wife alone. The trial court denied his motion, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
May a judgment declaring a wife solely liable for a debt be executed against the conjugal partnership property over the objection of the husband?
RULING
No. The Court of Appeals’ decision nullifying the levy on the conjugal property is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s final and executory judgment established the debt as the exclusive obligation of the wife. Since the debt was incurred without the husband’s consent and did not redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership, it is not chargeable against the conjugal assets under Article 121 of the Family Code. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the judgment it seeks to enforce. The judgment here ordered payment from the defendant-wife’s properties only. Therefore, levying upon conjugal property, which is owned in common by both spouses, constitutes an execution against property belonging to a third party (the husband) not liable under the judgment. The sheriff acted in excess of his authority by enforcing the writ against assets not included within its mandate. The husband, as a third-party claimant whose ownership was adversely affected, properly invoked judicial protection to quash the wrongful levy.