MARGARITA QUINTOS DE ANSALDO AND ANGEL A. ANSALDO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OE MANILA, FIDELITY & SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND LUZON…

Upon the express guaranty of the appellant
Fidelity & Surety Company of the Philippine Islands, the Philippine
Trust Company granted Romarico Agcaoili a credit in current account not
to exceed at any one time P20,000. Appellee Angel A. Ansaldo, in turn,
agreed to indemnify the Fidelity & Surety Company of the Philippine
Islands for any and all losses and damages that it might sustain by
reason of having guaranteed Agcaoili’s obligations to the said
Philippine Trust Company. Agcaoili defaulted, and the surety company,
as his guarantor, paid the Philippine Trust Company the sum of
P19,065.17. Thereafter, the surety company brought an action against
the appellee Angel A, Ansaldo for the recovery of the said sum of
P19,065.17, and after obtaining a judgment in its favor, caused the
sheriff of the City of Manila to levy on the following properties:

“The joint savings account in the name of
Angel A. Ansaldo and Margarita Quintos de Ansaldo in the Bank of the
Philippine Islands amounting to P470.96, and

“The joint
current account of the said spouses Angel A. Ansaldo and Margarita
Quintos de Ansaldo in the said Bank of the Philippine Islands amounting
to P165.84.”

Upon learning of the action
taken by the sheriff, appellees filed with him a third party claim
alleging that the money on which he levied execution was the property
of the conjugal partnership existing between the said appellees and not
liable for the payment of personal obligations of the appellee Angel A.
Ansaldo; but upon execution of an indemnity bond by the appellant Luzon
Surety Company, the sheriff retained the money in his possession.

Subsequently, appellees instituted an action against the appellants in
the Court of First Instance of Manila to have the execution levied by
the sheriff declared null and void. The court below granted the relief
prayed for and sentenced the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay
the appellees the sum of P636.80 with interest thereon at the rate of
ten per centum per annum from June 6,1934 until paid, and the costs of
suit.

As stated by counsel for the appellants, the question involved in
this appeal is whether a joint savings account and a joint current
account, in a bank, of a husband and his wife are liable for the
payment of the obligation of the husband.

It is undisputed that the sum of P636.80 which is now in
controversy was derived from the paraphernal property of the appellee,
Margarita Quintos de Ansaldo, the wife of the other appellee Angel A.
Ansaldo. It therefore belongs to the conjugal partnership of the said
spouses. (Civil Code, art. 1401.)

The provision of article 1408 of the Civil Code to the effect that
the conjugal partnership shall be liable for all the debts and
obligations contracted during the marriage by the husband must be
understood as subject to the qualifications established by article 1386
of the same Code, which provides that:

“The fruits of the paraphernal property cannot be
subject to the payment of personal obligations of the husband, unless
it be proved that such obligations were productive of some benefit to
the family.”

The meaning of this article is clarified by reference to the first
paragraph of the preceding article 1385 which reads as follows:

“The fruits of the paraphernal property form part
of the assets of the conjugal partnership, and are subject to the
payment of the debts and expenses of the spouses.”

Construing the two articles together, it seems clear that the
fruits of the paraphernal property which become part of the assets of
the conjugal partnership are not liable for the payment of personal
obligations of the husband, unless it be proved that such obligations
were productive of some benefit to the family.

In the case now before us, no attempt has been made to prove that
the obligations contracted by the appellee, Angel A. Ansaldo, were
productive of some benefit to his family. It is, however, claimed that,
as the sum of P636.80 has become the property of the conjugal
partnership, at least one-half thereof was properly levied on
execution, as the share of the appellee Angel A. Ansaldo. This
contention is without merit. The right of the husband to one-half of
the property of the conjugal partnership does not vest until the
dissolution of the marriage, when the conjugal partnership is also
dissolved. (Civil Code, arts. 1392 and 1426.)

Counsel for the appellants call attention to the fact that in the
third party claim filed with the sheriff of the City of Manila by the
appellees, the latter did not allege that the money on which the
sheriff levied execution was property belonging exclusively to the
appellee Margarita Quintos de Ansaldo. Counsel contend that, as it was
then claimed that the said amount of P636.80 was conjugal property,
appellees are now in estoppel to claim that the same sum was not
conjugal property but paraphernal property of the appellee Margarita
Quintps de Ansaldo, and, therefore, not subject to execution. Counsel
for the appellants are arguing from a wrong premise. Appellees do not
contend that said sum of P636.80 is not conjugal property. They contend
that while it forms part of the assets of the conjugal partnership
under article 1385 of the Civil Code, it could not be levied upon,
because it was not subject to the payment of personal obligations of
the husband under article 1386 of the same Code. It seems clear,
therefore, that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to this case.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur