GR 39440; (March, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 39440 ; March 14, 1934
RAFAEL VILLANUEVA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Rafael Villanueva (husband) and Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva (wife) are spouses. Due to Rafael’s misconduct, Aurelia left the conjugal home and secured a final court judgment against him for support for herself and their minor children. Instead of complying, Rafael mortgaged his properties and left the Philippines. To enforce the judgment, a writ of execution was issued, some of Rafael’s properties were seized and sold at a sheriff’s sale, and Aurelia purchased them. After the redemption period, sheriff’s deeds were issued to Aurelia. Rafael filed this action to annul the deeds.
ISSUE
1. Whether the sheriff’s sale and the deeds issued to the wife are invalid because a married woman cannot enter into such a purchase contract without her husband’s consent.
2. Whether a judgment for spousal support can only be enforced by contempt proceedings, making execution unlawful.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the wife, Aurelia.
1. The claim that the purchase is void due to lack of the husband’s consent is erroneous. Annulment of a sheriff’s deed is an equitable remedy, and the husband, having violated his marital obligations and left his family in want, cannot invoke equity as he does not come to court with “clean hands.” The law authorized the wife to secure the judgment and, as a party litigant, she has the right to a writ of execution and to bid at the sheriff’s sale. The husband cannot defeat her rights by asserting his authority as manager of the conjugal partnership, especially as the purchase could benefit the partnership by preventing an outsider from buying the property at an inadequate price.
2. The contention that support judgments are enforceable only by contempt is incorrect. While such a judgment may be enforced by contempt, it is still a money judgment for which a writ of execution can properly issue. Costs were awarded against the appellant husband.
AI Generated by Armztrong.