GR L 25790; (September, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968
JOSE A. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. ADELAIDA CRUZ, respondent.
FACTS
Adelaida Cruz filed a case against spouses Felicidad P. Garcia and Jose A. Garcia for recovery of P4,000.00. The defendants were declared in default, and an ex-parte judgment was rendered against them jointly and severally. Jose A. Garcia filed a motion/petition for relief, claiming he was not served with summons. The Court of First Instance (CFI) granted the petition, allowing him to file an answer. In his answer, Garcia alleged he lived separately from his wife since November 1957, that the transaction between his wife and Cruz was without his consent, and that he never failed to support his family. After trial, the CFI reversed its original decision and dismissed the complaint against Jose A. Garcia. Adelaida Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the CFI’s dismissal, finding that Jose A. Garcia had promised to pay Cruz for the jewelry sold by his wife and was liable for P2,000.00 of the proceeds. Jose A. Garcia appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that under Article 113(2) of the Civil Code, he should not be joined in the suit as he and his wife had been separated for at least one year.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the dismissal of the case against Jose A. Garcia based on Article 113(2) of the Civil Code, given the finding of fact that he lived separately from his wife for more than one year.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the findings of fact of the CA are binding, unless clearly baseless or irrational. The CA found that Jose A. Garcia had promised to pay Adelaida Cruz for the jewelry sold by his wife. This promise rendered irrelevant the issue of his separation from his wife, especially since there was no evidence that Cruz had knowledge of such separation. Furthermore, the Court noted that Garcia was aware of his wife’s habit of incurring obligations without his consent but failed to take steps to place her under guardianship, constituting negligence for which he could be held liable. The award was qualified as a debt of the conjugal partnership, as the support of the family is an obligation of the community, and the de facto separation does not affect the partnership.