[G.R. No. 153802. March 11, 2005.
]  Whether or not payment of the principal obligation on the
HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK, petitioner, vs.
MIGUELA C. DAILO, respondent.
PONENTE: TINGA, J.:
FACTS:
 Miguela and Marcelino Dailo were married in 1967. They
bought a house and lot during their marriage in San Pablo City,
Laguna but the absolute deed of sale was executed only in
favor of Marcelino and excluded his wife.
 In 1993, Marcelino executed a special power of attorney to
authorize a certain Lilibeth Gesmundo to obtain a loan from
petitioner bank HSLB with the house and lot as security. The
property was mortgaged and the loan was approved in
the amount of P300,000. Miguela did not know about this at
all
 When Gesmundo failed to pay the loan in full upon maturity,
the spouses' property was extra judicially foreclosed, sold, and
bought by petitioner bank. Because it was not redeemed after
one year, the bank consolidated their ownership over it.
 Marcelino died and it was only then that Miguela knew of the
mortgage, foreclosure and sale of their conjugal property.
 The CA ruled that Art 124 of the Family Code is controlling in
the case because it provided for the nullity of any encumbrance
or disposition without the knowledge and consent of both
spouses.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the Article 124 of the Family Code is in
effect in this case or is it the Article 493 of the Civil Code.
mortgage should be made by the conjugal partnership.
HELD:
 Yes. The Article 124 of the Family Code will apply. Basically, Article
493 provides for the co-owner of a property to have full ownership
of his part and therefore he may dispose of it as he wants. Because
Marcelino was such co-owner, he can do what he wants with the
property, like mortgage it. On the other hand, Article 124 provides
for the joint administration of conjugal properties. HSLB says that
the framers could not have intended that the co-owner spouse
cannot exercise his full rights because of the bar in Article 124.
There is no marriage settlement between Miguela and her dead
spouse, so their property regime is automatically conjugal
partnership of gains or CPG. If there is no consent as to the action
of one spouse with regards to the administration of the property,
the same is void.
 In this case, No. The HSLB says payment of the principal obligation
on the mortgage should be made by the conjugal partnership
because the loan redounded to the benefit of the family under
Article 121 of the Family Code. But the burden of proof lies with
the HSLB, on the one who alleges that the mortgage benefited the
conjugal partnership. HSLB alleges that the loan was used to
finance the construction of housing units but it was not adequately
proven. Also, since they kept on saying that Marcelino owned the
property in his individual capacity, it cannot be admitted that the
money was used for his family.