GR 143382; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143382; November 29, 2006
SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. MAR TIERRA CORPORATION, WILFRIDO C. MARTINEZ, MIGUEL J. LACSON and RICARDO A. LOPA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Security Bank and Trust Company approved a credit line for respondent Mar Tierra Corporation, secured by an indemnity agreement jointly and severally executed by individual respondents, including Wilfrido C. Martinez. The corporation later availed of ₱9,952,000 from the credit line but defaulted. Petitioner filed a collection case, and a writ of attachment was levied on the conjugal house and lot of spouses Wilfrido and Josefina Martinez. The Regional Trial Court held the corporation and Martinez solidarily liable but ordered the lifting of the attachment on the conjugal property, finding the obligation did not benefit the conjugal partnership. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
May the conjugal partnership be held liable for an indemnity agreement entered into by the husband to accommodate a third party?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the lower courts. Under Article 161(1) of the Civil Code (now Article 121(2) of the Family Code), the conjugal partnership is liable only for debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The legal logic distinguishes between obligations where the husband is the principal obligor for his own business or profession—which presumptively benefits the partnership—and those where he acts merely as a surety or guarantor for another. An accommodation contract or surety agreement primarily benefits the third-party principal debtor, not the surety’s family.
Here, Martinez executed the indemnity agreement as a surety for Mar Tierra Corporation’s loan. The principal credit line agreement was solely for the corporation’s benefit, and the accessory indemnity agreement similarly served that purpose. Petitioner failed to present proof that the conjugal partnership derived any benefit from this transaction. Consequently, no presumption arises that such a surety obligation benefits the conjugal partnership. To hold it liable would contravene the Civil Code’s objective of protecting the family unit and conserving the conjugal partnership. The attachment on the conjugal property was correctly lifted.