LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. G. L. MARCELINO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. VALENTINA NACIANCENO AND PEDRO ANGULO, APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal by two of the defendants, Valentina Nacianceno and
Pedro Angulo, from a decision of Judge Mariano A. Albert of the Court
of First Instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which is as
follows:

“1.° Que con excepcion del
traspaso, en virtud del cual el demandado Federico Ruperto adquirio el
terreno descrito en el Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo No. 31652
(Exh. 104) todos los demas traspasos efectuados por todos y cada uno de
los demandados entre si, segun aparecen de los exhibitos 90, 91, 92, 94
y 110 ó 45-Gonzaga son ficticios y fraudulentos y, por lo tanto, deben
cancelarse los Certificados de Transferencia de Titulo Nos. 31606-31617
y cualquiera anotacion que se haya hecho ya en el Buro de Comercio e
Industria, ya en el Registro de la Propiedad o en el Municipio de la
Ciudad de Manila sobre cualesquiera de estos traspasos.

“2.°
Que todos y cada uno de los demandados, con excepcion del demandado
Federico Ruperto, son mancomunada y solidariamente responsables a la
demandante por el pago de la suma de P59,970.17 alegada en la demanda,
con sus intereses legales desde el 1.º de enero de 1928 hasta que se
pague y por las costas de este juicio.

“3.° Que quedan sobreseidas todas las contrademandas de todos y cada uno de los demandados, por carecer de merito.”

The other defendants did not appeal, and the decision has become final as to them.

The appellants Valentina Nacianceno and Pedro Angulo make the following assignments of errors:

Valentina Nacianceno—

“I. El Juzgado a quo
erro al declarar que la demandada y apelante Valentina Nacianceno debia
saber de donde procedian las cantidades con las cuales adquiria fincas
y participaciones en negocios, porque constandole como le constaba el
pequeño sueldo que ganaba su esposo, el dinero que le entregaba para la
compra de terrenos y construccion de casas no podia proceder mas que de
un origin criminoso.

“II. El Juzgado a quo erro al dar credito a la declaracion del testigo Hilario Carpiso, en contra de la declaracion de la demandada apelante.

“III. El Juzgado a quo
erro al declarar que la demandada y apelante Valentina Nacianceno,
juntamente con todos y cada uno de los demandados, con excepcion del
demandado Federico Ruperto, es mancomunada y solidariamente responsable
a la demandante por el pago de la suma de P59,970.17 alegada en la
demanda de autos, con sus intereses legales desde el 1.º de enero de
1928 hasta que se pague, y por las costas del juicio, en vez de
absolver libremente a la misma concediendole la indemnizacion
solicitada.

“IV. El Juzgado a quo erro al negar
que la demandada-apelante tuviera fortuna personal propia y bienes
personales propios, sobreseyendo la contrademanda por ella interpuesta,
por carecer la misma de meritos, segun dicho Juzgado.”

Pedro Angulo—

“I.
El Juzgado inferior erro al haber permitido a Valentina Nacianceno
declarar contra su marido Geminiano L. Marcelino y contra su
codemandado Pedro Angulo durante la vista de este asunto; y al no
permitir a Geminiano L. Marcelino declarar en la misma vista de esta
causa sobre los puntos declarados por su esposa, despues de que esta ha
sido permitida a declarar en la forma arriba expuesta con objecion de
la representacion del apelante Pedro Angulo;

“II. El Juzgado a quo
incurrio en error al declarar ficticio el traspaso hecho por Geminiano
L. Marcelino de su participacion en la sociedad ‘Pedro Angulo y Cia.’,
a favor de Pedro Angulo por la suma de P14,000 que consta en la
escritura, Exhibit 1-Angulo;

“III. El Juzgado a quo
tambien incurrio en error al declarar que dicho traspaso a que se
contrae la escritura, Exhibit 1-Angulo, se hizo en fraude de acreedores
especialmente de la demandante;

“IV. Erro asimismo al dar
mas credito a la declaracion contradictoria, inverosimil e incongruente
de Valentina Nacianceno (cuyo testimonio en otra parte de la misma
decision se declara indigno de credito), que la declaracion del
apelante Pedro Angulo sostenida por pruebas documentales presentadas en
la vista de este asunto;

“V. El Juzgado inferior erro al
no estimar concluyentemente probada la consideracion del contrato,
Exhibit 1-Angulo y la buena fe del comprador Pedro Angulo en el
referido contrato;

“VI. El Juzgado a quo
incurrio en error al condenar al demandado Pedro Angulo a pagar
solidaria y mancomunadamente con sus codemandados la cantidad de
P59,970.17 no obstante la ausencia de toda alegacion y peticion
respecto a este extremo en la demanda;

“VII. El Juzgado
inferior erro al no haber sobreseido la demanda en cuanto al demandado
Pedro Angulo por haber sido este declarado completamente liberado de
toda clase de reclamaciones y obligaciones, previos los tramites
legales en los procedimientos de insolvencia;

“VIII. El
Juzgado inferior incurrio tambien en error al declarar que la presente
accion en lo que respecta al apelante Pedro Angulo cae dentro de las
excepciones contenidas en el articulo 68 de la Ley No. 1956;

“IX. El Juzgado inferior incurrio finalmente en error al no absolver
libremente de la demanda al apelante Pedro Angulo, y al no condenar a
la entidad demandante al pago de la cantidad reclamada en la
reconvencion alegada y probada por el demandado Pedro Angulo.”

It appears from the evidence that the defendants G. L. Marcelino and
Victorino Gonzaga were employed in the shipping department of the
plaintiff company. It was discovered that they had been
misappropriating funds of the plaintiff, and three criminal actions
were filed against them in the Court of First Instance of Manila. In
cases Nos. 37524, 37525, and 37247 it was respectively alleged that
they had misappropriated P20,719.77 in 1926, P45,828.83 in 1927, and
P59,970.18 in 1928, making a total of P126,518.78.

Said defendants were found guilty of estafa, and in addition to the prison sentence were condemned to indemnify the offended party, the plaintiff herein, as follows:

In case No. 37524, G. L. Marcelino, P8,848.67, and Victorino Gonzaga,
P14,210.02; in case No. 37525, G. L. Marcelino, P20,680.67, and
Victorino Gonzaga, P24,176.15; and in case No. 37247, G. L. Marcelino,
P13,869.24, and Victorino Gonzaga, P22,330.63.

The decisions of the trial court were affirmed by this court (Exhibit 89).^[1]

In the present civil action the plaintiff alleges that during the
period from January 1 to October 24, 1928 the defendants G. L.
Marcelino and Victorino Gonzaga misappropriated P59,970.18 belonging to
the plaintiff, and to sustain that allegation the plaintiff submitted
the evidence taken in the criminal cases. It will be noted that
P59,970.18 is the amount which it was alleged that said defendants had
misappropriated in 1928 according to criminal case No. 37247, but that
according to the decision in that case G. L. Marcelino was ordered to
indemnify the plaintiff in the sum of only P13,869.24 and Victorino
Gonzaga in the sum of P22,330.63. Their liability was not declared to
be joint and several.

In the case at bar, notwithstanding
the fact that G. L. Marcelino and Victorino Gonzaga had already been
sentenced to indemnify the plaintiff in the sum of P13,869.24 and
5P22,330.63 respectively, the court condemned each of them to pay the
plaintiff the further sum of P59,970.18, and each of the other
defendants except Federico Ruperto to pay the plaintiff the same
amount. That was obviously error, but the only defendants that appealed
were Valentina Nacianceno and Pedro Angulo.

We shall take up
the case of Valentina Nacianceno first. She is the wife of G. L.
Marcelino. They were married about 1906. It is alleged in the second
amended complaint that in connivance with her husband she participated
in and made use of the funds of the plaintiff misappropriated by her
codefendants, and acquired therewith different properties, which she
put in her own name the better to conceal the fraud committed against
the interests of the plaintiff; that she has not repaid to the
plaintiff any part of the sum of which the plaintiff was defrauded.
Those are the only material allegations of the complaint referring to
Valentina Nacianceno.

G. L. Marcelino and Valentina
Nacianceno filed a joint answer. They denied all the allegations of the
complaint except those relating to the employment of Marcelino by the
plaintiff, and filed a cross-complaint, which is really a counterclaim,
for P40,000, and alleged that in November, 1928, the plaintiff obtained
an order for the attachment of the property of said defendants; that
the sheriff of Manila attached all the properties of the said
defendants described in the complaint and also the rents thereof;

That G. L. Marcelino had mortgaged to the Insular Life Assurance Co.
for P9,000 the property described in transfer certificate No. 20422 in
the office of the register of deeds for Manila; that he was the owner
of the land and Valentina Nacianceno of the building; that because the
plaintiff attached the rents of said property, said spouses could not
pay the interest on the loan, and the mortgagee foreclosed the
mortgage, and the property was sold at public auction on October 30,
1929 for P9,353.60;

That Valentina Nacianceno had mortgaged
to the Philippine Guaranty Co. for P12,000 the real property described
in transfer certificate of title No. 25528 in the office of the
register of deeds for Manila, which belonged exclusively to her; that
because the plaintiff attached the rents she was unable to pay the
interest on the mortgage debt, and the mortgagee foreclosed the
mortgage, and the property was sold at public auction on October 30,
1929 for P14,062.73;

That by the wrongful acts of the
plaintiff, which caused the foreclosure of said mortgages, said
defendants were damaged in the amount of P40,000.

The
defendants G. L. Marcelino and Valentina Nacianceno prayed that the
plaintiff be condemned to pay them said sum and the amount of the rents
collected.

Taking up the cross-complaint first, we find no
description in the complaint of any property belonging to G. L.
Marcelino and Valentina Nacianceno. It appears from the evidence,
however, that certain real property claimed by Valentina Nacianceno,
not mentioned in the cross-complaint, was attached, and that a piano
and other furniture were attached and sold. The ownership of this
property claimed by Valentina Nacianceno to belong to her exclusively
was not raised by the pleadings and was therefore not decided by the
trial court.

With respect to the two mortgaged properties
mentioned in the cross-complaint, after considering the evidence, we
agree with the trial judge that they were acquired with money furnished
by the defendant G. L. Marcelino. They were therefore conjugal
properties and subject to attachment and sale for the satisfaction of
the obligation of said defendant, and the rents from said properties
were likewise subject to attachment. There is therefore no merit in the
cross-complaint.

The next question is whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover from Valentina Nacianceno P59,970.17
or any sum. As already indicated, the amount misappropriated by G. L.
Marcelino, the husband of Valentina Nacianceno, during the period now
in question was P13,869.24 (criminal case No. 37247). Although it is
true that Marcelino misappropriated other sums prior to 1928, we must
be governed by the complaint, and the only sum put in issue is that
misappropriated by Marcelino in 1928, which was alleged by the
plaintiff to be P59,970.17, but found by the court to be P13,869.24.

In the second place the evidence does not sustain the allegation that
Valentina Nacianceno connived with her husband in the misappropriation
of the funds belonging to the plaintiff, or the finding of the trial
judge that she must have known that the money her husband gave her had
a criminal origin. She was not a principal, accomplice, or accessory as
to the crime for which her husband was convicted, and no judgment can
be rendered against her merely because of the commission of the crime.
If she acquired property with money received from her husband, that
property is of course conjugal property and liable for the satisfaction
of a judgment against the husband, regardless of whether the money was
stolen by the husband from the plaintiff or won at gambling, but the
plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment against her in that case for
the money she received or the cost of the property.

If she
sold the property thus acquired and appropriated the proceeds to her
own use, she would be liable to the plaintiff therefor; but in the
present case it appears that she or her husband mortgaged one house in
order to build the other, and that she mortgaged the second property to
secure funds for the defense of her husband in the criminal cases.
Under those circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to any money
judgment against the defendant and appellant Valentina Nacianceno.

As to the other property attached by the plaintiff and claimed by
Valentina Nacianceno, we cannot now decide, because there is no
description of said property in the complaint or the cross-complaint.
The right of Valentina Nacianceno to assert her claim thereto is
reserved, and also her right to claim damages for the personal property
already sold by the sheriff at the instance of the plaintiff.

As to the appellant Pedro Angulo, the judgment against him for
P59,970.17 is also erroneous. G. L. Marcelino and Pedro Angulo were
partners in the “firm of Pedro Angulo y Cia., doing business under the
trade-name of Central Auto Supply Co. On October 23, 1928, shortly
after the peculations of Marcelino and Victorino Gonzaga were
discovered, Marcelino executed a document by which he purported to sell
his interest in the partnership to Pedro Angulo for P14,000. A few
months later Pedro Angulo was declared insolvent, and all the assets of
the Central Auto Supply Co. were sold by the assignee, and in due
course Pedro Angulo was discharged from all his debts. We agree with
the trial judge that the alleged sale of the interest of Marcelino to
Pedro Angulo was only a simulated sale, and that Pedro Angulo did not
pay Marcelino P14,000 or any other sum; but we are utterly unable to
see why that transaction gave the plaintiff the right to recover
P59,970.17 from Pedro Angulo. There being no valid transfer of the
interest of Marcelino to Pedro Angulo, but only a simulated sale, Pedro
Angulo got nothing thereby. The interest of Marcelino in the
partnership remained the property of Marcelino. The next question is to
what extent, if at all, was the plaintiff damaged by the transaction
between Marcelino and Pedro Angulo. It appears from the evidence that
Marcelino had invested P22,000 in the business of the partnership; that
at the time of the transaction in question the partnership was heavily
in debt, and that a few months later Pedro Angulo was declared
insolvent because of the debts of this business. It is not proved what
was the value of the interest of Marcelino in the partnership at the
time of the simulated sale, or that it has any value whatever. It
follows therefore that it is not proved that the plaintiff was damaged
by the transaction between Marcelino and Pedro Angulo, and the judgment
against the latter must be set aside.

With respect to the counterclaim of Pedro Angulo, there is no proof of the alleged damages by reason of the attachment.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from is modified as
follows: The judgment against Valentina Nacianceno and Pedro Angulo
jointly and severally for P59,970.17 is set aside; the right of
Valentina Nacianceno to assert her claim to the furniture and piano and
the real property attached but not included in this action is reserved
to her. As thus modified, the decision is affirmed.

The plaintiff will pay the costs of this instance.

Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, and Butte, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. Nos. 33147-33149. People vs. Marcelino and Gonzaga, promulgated September 23, 1930, not reported.