johnson and johnson vs. ca

[G.R. No. 102692. September 23, 1996]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALEJO M. VINLUAN,respondents.

This case was initiated in the trial court by a complaint^[3] filed by petitioner against spouses Delilah A. Vinluan, owner of Vinluan Enterprises, and her husband Capt. Alejo M. Vinluan (the private respondent before us), for collection of a sum of money with damages

The plaintiff-respondent Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of various cosmetics, health, and body care products, as well as medical drugs. On several occasions in the year 1982, the defendant, Delilah Vinluan, purchased products of the plaintiff-respondent corporation, as she was also engaged in the business of retailing Johnson products, among others. The defendants, under the name and style of 'Vinluan Enterprises,' thus incurred an obligation of P235,880.89, for which she issued seven (7) Philippine Banking Corporation checks of varying amounts and due dates. When presented on their respective due dates, however, the checks given in payment of the obligation bounced and were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.

Several demands thereafter for payment were to no avail, despite the accommodations given by the plaintiff-respondent corporation by granting several extensions to the defendant spouses to settle the obligation. It was only on January 5, 1983 that the defendants made a partial payment of P5,000.00, thereby reducing their principal obligation to P230,880.89. When no further payments were made to settle the obligation despite repeated demands, the plaintiff-respondent corporation was constrained to file a complaint on June 8, 1983 against defendant spouses Vinluan, for collection of the principal obligation plus interest, with damages.

Issue: May a husband be held liable for the debts of his wife which were incurred without his consent and which did not benefit the conjugal partnership? May a judgment declaring a wife solely liable, be executed upon conjugal property, over the objection of the husband?

Held:

The respondent Court's original findings, had already become final and indisputable. The respondent Court already found that the defendant husband did not give his consent; neither did the obligation incurred by the defendant wife redound to the benefit of the family. Hence, the conjugal partnership, as well as the defendant husband, cannot be held liable. As originally decreed by the Court, only the defendant wife and her paraphernal property can be held liable. Since the power of the court in execution of judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone, the conjugal properties and the capital of the defendant husband cannot be levied upon.

The consent of the husband is indeed vital in determining what properties shall be subsidiarily liable in the event the paraphernal properties of Delilah Vinluan should turn out to be insufficient to cover the judgment debt, as fully explained in the Order dated 24 July 1989.

Art. 122 of the Family Code which partly provides that --

The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.