ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 10374  August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO<br /><br />034 Phil 793

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10374. August 18, 1916. ]

    PIO MERCADO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Williams, Ferrier & SyCip for Appellant.

    Rohde & Wright for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    HUSBAND AND WIFE; PARAPHERNAL PROPERTY. — In order to alienate, encumber, or mortgage the paraphernal property, a married woman requires in each case special powers from her husband. (Civil Code, art. 1387.)


    D E C I S I O N


    ARELLANO, C.J. :


    Pio Mercado filed suit against Maria Tan-Lingco, alleging that on July 19, 1909, his wife Rita Raiz Mateo executed in the defendant’s favor an instrument in which she acknowledged having received from the said Tan-Lingco a loan of P2,500. to be repaid "within one year, in the month of January or February, 1910, extendible from year to year to the maximum time limit of five years, counting from the month of June, 1909;" that, as security for the payment thereof she mortgaged thirty-one parcels of land of her exclusive ownership, all duly described and specified in said instrument; this document also recited a power of attorney couched in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I, Pio Mercado, a resident of the municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, P. I., do hereby certify that, for the purposes of articles 60 and 61 of the Civil Code, I confer upon my wife, Rita Raiz Mateo, the marital permission necessary for said lady to appear in court, by herself or through a solicitor, and perform any and all acts in which she may have an interest, and finally, with respect to all acts which, according to the laws in force, a married woman can not perform without her husband’s permission, to ratify everything done in matters of contract from the day of her marriage."cralaw virtua1aw library

    That subsequently, on September 22, 1911, his wife and two sons Francisco Mercado and Tomas Mercado liquidated the amount of the debt shown to be owing the defendant Maria Tan-Lingco, in accordance with the preceding contract, and executed in the latter’s behalf the following document:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "We, the undersigned mother and children, hereby certify that on this day we have liquidated our debt to Maria Tan-Lingco and it has been found that said debt amounts to exactly P13,000, which we will pay in the month of January of next year, 1912; if we do not, we will pay her in palay during the month of February, 1912. (Sgd.) Rita R. Mateo, Francisco Mercado. Tomas Mercado."cralaw virtua1aw library

    That this contract was executed by his wife without his knowledge, consent, or marital permission. In consequence, plaintiff offered to pay defendant the P2,500 of the original debt, prayed the said contract be declared null and void and that defendant be ordered to deliver to him all the muniments of title pertaining to said lands.

    The defendant interposed a demurrer, which was sustained, and as the plaintiff refused to amend his complaint the court absolved the defendant therefrom. Upon appeal this court reversed the judgment and ordered that the cause be remanded to the court whence it came, for further proceedings. (Mercado v. Tan-Lingco, 27 Phil. Rep., 319.)

    After the remand of the record the case was proceeded with. Later the trial court rendered judgment in which he held the mortgage deed in question to be null and void, ordered the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the muniments of title to the land mentioned in said deed, and ordered the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the amount of the mortgage, P2,500, with legal interest thereon, counting from July 19, 1909.

    The defendant appealed.

    But all her allegations in support of her appeal must fail before the categorical provision of article 1387 of the Civil Code which says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The wife can not alienate, encumber, or mortgage the paraphernal property without the permission of the husband, nor appear in court to litigate with regard to the same, unless she has been judicially authorized for the purpose."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is true that in 1905 the plaintiff gave his wife authority "for the purposes of articles 60 and 71 (perhaps 61) of the Civil Code, to perform any and all acts and execute any contract in which she may have an interest, and for all acts which, according to the laws in force, a married woman cannot perform without her husband’s permission," but he mortgage which this married woman made of thirty-six parcels of paraphernal property belonging to her does not fall within the provisions of articles 60, 61, or 71 (cited, perhaps, incorrectly for 61); the first of these articles relates to the wife’s appearance in a suit, and the second, to acquiring and alienating property and binding herself in general, while the sense of article 1387 is that in order to alienate, encumber, or mortgage the paraphernal property, a married woman requires in each case special powers from her husband, inasmuch as he has an interest in the proceeds from his wife’s paraphernal property; these proceeds pass to the category of community property of the marriage which is subject to the payment of the conjugal debts. At the end of two years of indebtedness, Rita Mateo liquidated her debt to her creditors, and it was then ascertained that the said debt had increased from P2,500 its amount at the beginning, to P13,000, and the wife and her children promised to pay off this debt in palay if they did not do so in cash, thus depriving the husband of the fruits of the 36 parcels of mortgaged land and defrauding him of the rights granted to him by law. The law rightly requires that this class of contracts shall record the husband’s permission, something which is not a mere display of authority but which is of the highest interest for the husband and for the good management of the conjugal partnership.

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10374  August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO<br /><br />034 Phil 793


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED