Case Digest: AGUETE V. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

AGUETE V. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK 

G.R. No. 170166, [April 6, 2011]

DOCTRINE:

Where the husband contracts obligations on behalf of the family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, that such obligation will redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

 FACTS:

Spouses Jose Ros and Estrella Aguete filed acomplaint for annulment against PNB before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Jose Ros previously obtained a loan in the amount of P115,000.00 from PNB and as security, a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land with TCT. No. T-9646 was executed. Upon maturity, the loan remained unpaid and an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding on the mortgaged property was instituted by PNB. After the lapse of a year, the property was consolidated and registered in the name of PNB.

Estrella Aguete, claiming she had no knowledge of the said loan nor the mortgage constituted on the land which is part of their conjugal property, contested the transactions and filed for an annulment of the proceedings. She interposed in her defense that the signatures affixed on the documents were forged and that the proceeds of the loan did not redound to the benefit of the family.

RTC ruled for the spouses, stating that Aguete may during their marriage and within ten years from the transaction mentioned, may ask the court for an annulment of the case. On notice of appeal by PNB, Court of Appeals reversed this ruling and found for PNB, stating that forgery was concluded without adequate proof. It also found that the loan was used in the expansion of the family business.

 Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

How is the benefit to the family proven so as to render the loan contracted by the husband binding upon the conjugal property?

HELD:

If the husband himself is the principal obligor in the contract, that contract falls within the term “x x x x obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership.”

Here, no actual benefit may be proved. It is enough that the benefit to the family is apparent at the signing of the contract. Where the husband contracts obligations on behalf of the family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, that such obligation will redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

Court denies the petition.

RATIO:

Annulment of the contract will only be granted upon a finding that the wife did not give her consent to the transaction. Even as Aguete disavows the documents supposedly acknowledged before the notary public, the document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due exececution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate.

Petitioners did not present any corroborating witness, such as a handwriting expert, who could authoritatively declare that Aguete’s signatures were really forged.

In her testimony, Aguete confirmed that Ros engaged in such business, but claimed to be unaware whether it prospered. Debts contracted by the husband for and in the exercise of the industry or profession by which he contributes to the support of the family cannot be deemed to be his exclusive and private debts. It is immaterial, if in the end, his business or profession fails or does not succeed, such may still be charged against the conjugal property of the spouses.