G.R. No. L-25355 August 28, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. FROILAN LAGRIMAS, accused, HEIRS OF PELAGIO CAGRO, heirs-appellants, MERCEDES AGUIRRE DE LAGRIMAS, movant-appellee.

FACTS

An information for murder was filed against Froilan Lagrimas. The heirs of the victim, Pelagio Cagro, obtained a writ of preliminary attachment on the accused’s property. After trial, the lower court found Lagrimas guilty, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs. The judgment became final. A writ of execution was issued, and a levy was made on eleven parcels of land declared in the accused’s name. The accused’s wife, Mercedes Aguirre de Lagrimas, moved to quash the attachment and execution, alleging the levied property belonged to the conjugal partnership and was not liable for the indemnity. The lower court, through Judge Ignacio Mangosing, granted the motion, declaring the attachment and execution null and void. The court order was premised on the interpretation that under Article 161 of the Civil Code, conjugal partnership assets could only answer for fines and indemnities after the obligations listed in Article 161 were paid, which required prior liquidation of the partnership. Since both spouses were still alive and no judicial separation of property was decreed, liquidation could not occur, thus exempting the conjugal property from liability at that stage. The heirs of Pelagio Cagro appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the conjugal partnership assets can be held liable for the payment of fines and indemnities imposed upon a spouse prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order. The applicable provision, Article 163 of the Civil Code, explicitly states that fines and indemnities imposed upon either husband or wife may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Article 161 have been covered, if the offending spouse has no separate property or if it is insufficient. The law speaks of “partnership assets” and contemplates that the conjugal partnership is still existing; the termination of the partnership is not a prerequisite for such enforcement. The concluding portion of Article 163, which provides that at the time of liquidation the spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for such purposes, confirms that payment can be made during the partnership’s existence. The lower court’s interpretation was contrary to the plain terms of the law. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court for the reception of evidence on how the partnership assets could be made to respond, noting that the proof required from the beneficiaries should not be of the most exacting kind, as the obligations under Article 161 are peculiarly within the knowledge of the spouses representing the conjugal partnership.