Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

059 Phil 664:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39440. March 14, 1934.]

RAFAEL VILLANUEVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA, Defendant-Appellee.

Conrado V. Sanchez for Appellant.

Harvey & O’Brien and Eugenio Angeles for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; JUDGMENT SECURED BY WIFE AGAINST HUSBAND; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT; COURT OF EQUITY. — The wife in this case secured a judgment against her husband for which execution was issued. The annulment sought for by the husband of the deed given by the sheriff to the wife after the expiration of the statutory period is an equitable action, and he that comes into a court of equity must do so with clean hands. Appellant on account of his misconduct towards her has no grounds to appeal to a court of equity in a suit in which his wife is concerned.


D E C I S I O N


HULL, J.:


The parties in this case are husband and wife. Finally the misconduct of the husband was so great as to compel the wife to withdraw from the family home, and it was necessary for the wife to have recourse to the courts for support for herself and their minor children.

After trial in which judgment was given against the husband, he appealed to this court, which likewise decided against his contentions. 1 Instead of complying with his obligations, he mortgaged some of his properties and left the Islands, leaving his wife and children without means of support.

The judgment in the former case having become final, a writ of execution was issued, and certain of plaintiff’s properties were seized and duly sold by the sheriff. The wife bought in those properties at the sale as part payment of the judgment which she had secured, and after the expiration of the statutory period, sheriff’s deeds in favor of the wife were duly executed.

Plaintiff in these proceedings asks that those deeds be annulled.

After trial, judgment was given in favor of defendant, and plaintiff brings this appeal. Appellant’s main contention is that a purchase at a sale is in effect a contract which a married woman cannot enter except with the consent of the husband, and therefore the husband has a right to have the sale annulled and the property restored to him. Appellant likewise contends that judgment for support of a wife can only be enforced by contempt proceedings and that therefore execution was unlawful.

No authorities are cited to sustain the second proposition which is obviously incorrect. The wife secured a definite judgment against the husband, which because of its nature may be enforced by contempt proceedings, but it is nevertheless also a judgment for which execution can issue. The contention of the husband, appellant, as to the first proposition is likewise erroneous. Annulment of a deed given by a sheriff is an equitable action, and he that comes into a court of equity must do so with clean hands. Certainly appellant in this case has no grounds to appeal to a court of equity in a suit in which his wife is concerned. He has violated his marital obligations and yet seeks to exercise the power which the law gives to the husband for the protection of the conjugal partnership, not for the protection of the partnership, not for the protection of the home, but to leave his wife and minor children in absolute want.

Appellant overlooks the fact that the law authorized the wife to secure the judgment against him. She has the same rights to a writ of execution and to follow through thereon as any party litigant. If it is necessary for her protection to bid in the property at a sheriff’s sale, the husband has no power whatsoever to defeat her rights by a claim of being the head and manager of the conjugal partnership. In fact in many instances it might well be that the purchase by the wife would be to the benefit of the conjugal partnership rather than that the property should be bought in by an outsider for an inadequate sum.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 54 Phil., 92.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 37986 March 1, 1934 - EUFEMIA MERCADO v. MUN. PRES. OF MACABEBE

    059 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36699 March 3, 1934 - HEIRS OF DATU PENDATUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 40468 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO M. SIOJO

    059 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 40512 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERFECTO TAYAG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 40592 March 3, 1934 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 40895 March 5, 1934 - TEOFILO HAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 37602 March 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 39633 March 7, 1934 - HENRY HERMAN v. LA URBANA

    059 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 38736 March 10, 1934 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    059 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 39209 March 10, 1934 - HIPOLITO ANDALIS v. LUCIA PULGUERAS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 39806 March 10, 1934 - LA URBANA v. SUSANA VILLASOR, ET AL.

    059 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 40309 March 10, 1934 - BERNARDINO QUITORIANO, ET AL. v. ROQUE M. CENTENO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 40327 March 10, 1934 - DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL. v. PNB

    059 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 39797 March 12, 1934 - FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN v. IRENE PAÑGANIBAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. 39679 March 13, 1934 - GENATO COMM’L. CORP. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

    059 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 39801 March 14, 1934 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    059 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 37671 March 15, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO RAMOSO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 40177 March 15, 1934 - LI SENG GIAP & CO. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    059 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 39389 March 16, 1934 - LUIS MIRASOL v. MARIA LIM

    059 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 40147 March 16, 1934 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO ITALIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 712

  • G.R. Nos. 339303-39305 March 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE KALALO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 39670 March 20, 1934 - ROSARIO OÑAS v. CONSOLACION JAVILLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 39799 March 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO NARVAES

    059 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 39681 March 21, 1934 - BONIFACIO LUMANLAN v. JACINTO R. CURA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 39883 March 21, 1934 - ODUS C. HORNEY v. SOUTHERN TRANS. & TRADING CO.

    059 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS

    059 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 39587 March 24, 1934 - ALEKO E. LILIUS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 40935 March 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APRONIANO DIAZ

    059 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. 40315 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO.

    059 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 40316 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. PANFILO SABELLANO

    059 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 40317 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. E. VESNAN

    059 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. 40319 March 27, 1934 - ESMERALDA VESNAN v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. 40425 March 27, 1934 - RAMON SILOS v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 36657 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 36701 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. ORIENT INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 37757 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

    059 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 39842 March 28, 1934 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO. v. MUN. OF IMUS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 39996 March 28, 1934 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. FERNANDO GREY, JR., ET AL.

    059 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 41433 March 28, 1934 - NATALIO AREVALO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 839

  • G.R. Nos. 36811, 36827, 36840 & 36872 March 31, 1934 - ANTONIO MA. R. BARRETTO, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 845