Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
| G.R. No. 118305. February 12, 1998 | Martinez .J. | Jasper Alfredo Ching to jointly and severally pay AIDC the
Valencia principal amount of P50,300,000.00 with interests
Pending appeal, upon motion of AIDC, the lower
Recit Summary: court issued a writ of execution pending appeal. -
PBM obtained a loan from AIDC GRANTED
Executive VP of PBM, executed security agreements Abelardo Magsajo (Sr. Deputy Sheriff of Rizal)
on making himself jointly and severally answerable issued upon respondents-spouses the notice of
with PBMs indebtedness to AIDC. sheriff sale dated May 20, 1982 on three (3) of their
PBM failed to pay the loan. conjugal properties and scheduled the auction sale
AIDC filed a case for sum of money against PBM and of the properties levied.
respondent-husband June 9, 1982 - private respondents filed a case of
CFI ordered PBM and respondent-husband to injunction (Civil Case No. 46309) against petitioners
jointly and severally pay AIDC. with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig)
Sr. Deputy Sheriff of Rizal issued upon respondents- to enjoin the auction sale
spouses the notice of sheriff sale dated May 20, Petitioners cannot enforce the judgment against
1982 on three (3) of their conjugal properties and the conjugal partnership because the subject loan
scheduled the auction sale of the properties levied. did not redound to the benefit of the said conjugal
Private respondents filed a case of injunction partnership
Auction sale took place. AIDC being the only bidder Lower court issued a temporary restraining order to
The loan procured from respondent-appellant AIDC prevent petitioner Magsajo from proceeding with
was for the advancement and benefit of Philippine the enforcement of the writ of execution and with
Blooming Mills and not for the benefit of the the sale of the said properties at public auction
conjugal partnership of petitioners-appellees AIDC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court
No. The debt is clearly a corporate debt and of Appeals, questioning the order of the lower court
respondent-appellants right of recourse against enjoining the sale.
appellee-husband as surety is only to the extent of June 25, 1982 - Court of Appeals issued a
Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the lower
his corporate stockholdings.
court from enforcing its Order
Signing as a surety is certainly not an exercise of an June 25, 1982 - auction sale took place. AIDC being
industry or profession the only bidder
No. Here, the property in dispute also involves the September 3, 1983 - AIDC filed a motion to dismiss
family home. The loan is a corporate loan not a the petition for injunction filed before Branch XIII of
personal one. the CFI of Rizal (for being moot and academic - sale
The petition for review should be, as it is hereby, already took place) - motion dismissed
DENIED for lack of merit. September 18, 1991 - trial court declared the sale
null and void.
Facts of the case: AIDC appealed to CA - affirmed CFI decision; motion
The petitioner assails the decision dated April 14, for reconsideration denied
1994 of the respondent Court of Appeals in Spouses Hence, this petition for review.
Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching vs. Ayala Investment ISSUES/RATIO:
and Development Corporation, et. al. upholding the 1. The loan procured from respondent-appellant AIDC
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch was for the advancement and benefit of Philippine
168, which ruled that the conjugal partnership of Blooming Mills and not for the benefit of the
gains of respondents-spouses Alfredo and conjugal partnership of petitioners-appellees
Encarnacion Ching is not liable for the payment of a. No. The debt is clearly a corporate debt
the debts secured by respondent-husband Alfredo and respondent-appellants right of
Ching. recourse against appellee-husband as
Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) obtained a surety is only to the extent of his corporate
P50,300,000.00 loan from petitioner Ayala
stockholdings. It does not extend to the
Investment and Development Corporation (AIDC)
conjugal partnership of gains of the family
December 10, 1980 and March 20, 1981 - As added
security for the credit line extended to PBM, of petitioners-appellees.
respondent Alfredo Ching, Executive Vice President b. The burden of proof that the debt was
of PBM, executed security agreements on making contracted for the benefit of the conjugal
himself jointly and severally answerable with PBMs partnership of gains, lies with the creditor-
indebtedness to AIDC. party litigant claiming as such.
PBM failed to pay loan
2. Signing as a surety is certainly not an exercise of an
July 30, 1981 - AIDC filed a case for sum of money industry or profession. Signing as a surety is not
against PBM and respondent-husband Alfredo embarking in a business.
Ching with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal
(Civil Case No. 42228)
a. No. Here, the property in dispute also
involves the family home. The loan is a
corporate loan not a personal one. Signing
as a surety is certainly not an exercise of
an industry or profession nor an act of
administration for the benefit of the
family.
SC RULING:
The petition for review should be, as it is hereby, DENIED for
lack of merit.