0% found this document useful (0 votes)
72 views1 page

398 Buado vs. Ca

This case discusses whether the respondent, who is the husband of the judgment debtor Erlinda, can be considered a "third party" in relation to a civil case where Erlinda was ordered to pay damages. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent cannot be deemed a stranger to the case against his wife, as her obligations could potentially affect their conjugal partnership. Since it was not shown that the conjugal partnership benefited from Erlinda's crime, the respondent has no basis to file a third party claim and annul the certificate of sale issued to the petitioners. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

Abegail Galedo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
72 views1 page

398 Buado vs. Ca

This case discusses whether the respondent, who is the husband of the judgment debtor Erlinda, can be considered a "third party" in relation to a civil case where Erlinda was ordered to pay damages. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent cannot be deemed a stranger to the case against his wife, as her obligations could potentially affect their conjugal partnership. Since it was not shown that the conjugal partnership benefited from Erlinda's crime, the respondent has no basis to file a third party claim and annul the certificate of sale issued to the petitioners. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Uploaded by

Abegail Galedo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Galedo, Abegail P.

398. BUADO VS. CA

PETITIONER : SPOUSES ROBERTO BUADO and VENUS BUADO


RESPONDENT : Court of Appeals/ PR Romulo Nicol
DATE : April 24, 2009
PONENTE : Tinga, J. 
TOPIC : Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments

FACTS:

 Sps. Roberto and Venus Buado filed a complaint for damages against Erlinda with RTC Cavite.
This is in relation to the criminal offense filed against her by petitioner.
 Trial court ordered Erlinda to pay damages. The Decision became final and executory and a writ
of execution was issued. Since Erlinda’s personal property are insufficient to satisfy the judgment,
deputy sheriff issued a notice of levy on real property on execution.
 Two days before public auction, an affidavit of third-party claim was filed by a certain Fulo.
Petitioner put up a sheriff’s indemnity bond. Petitioner being the highest bidder, a certificate of
sale was issued in their favor.
 Nicol filed a complaint for annulment of certificate of sale and damages. Respondent claimed that
there was no proper publication and posting of sale. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss.
 Petitioners alleged that respondent, who is the husband of judgment debtor, is not “third party” as
defined in Sec. 17 of Rule 30 of Rules of Court, hence a separate action need not be filed

ISSUE:

WON respondent, husband of judgment debtor, is a “stranger” to the suit

HELD: Petition is dismissed.

 A third-party claim must be filed by a person other than judgment debtor or his agent. Only a
stranger to the case may file a third-party claim.

 In Mariano vs. CA, it held that the husband of judgment debtor cannot be deemed a
“stranger” to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has
redounded to the benefit of conjugal partnership.

 In absolute community where liabilities incurred by either spouse by crime/quasi-delict are


chargeable to absolute community property. The conjugal partnership of gains has no duty to
make advance payments for liability of debtor-spouse.

 It cannot be concluded that the civil obligation arising from crime of slander committed by Erlinda
redounded to the benefit of conjugal partnership. Conjugal property cannot be held liable for
personal obligation contracted by one spouses unless some advantage/benefit is shown to have
accrued to conjugal partnership.

You might also like