Alipio vs. Court of Appeals

Joint Lessee (D) vs. Lessor (P)
GR 134100

Summary: A lease was executed by a husband and his wife together with another couple. Then, the husband died. The lessor is suing the surviving wife as a solidary debtor.

Rule of Law: Spouses sued for the enforcement of an obligation entered into by them are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors such that the concept of joint or solidary liability, as between them, does not apply.

Facts: Romeo Jaring (P) subleased a fishpond to spouses Alipio (D) and spouses Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel for P485,600 payable in two installments. The first installment was paid, but the second was only partly paid. Despite due demand, the balance remain unpaid. Jaring (P) filed a case to collect the balance from the spouses Alipio (D) and spouses Manuel with a prayer for the alternative of rescission. Purita Alipio (D) moved to dismiss the case because her husband died and thus, dissolving their conjugal partnership. Alipio (D) contended that the proper action for Jaring (P) is to file a claim in the settlement of the estate.

The trial court denied Alipio's (D) motion on the ground that since she was herself a party to the sublease contract, she could be independently impleaded in the suit together with spouses Manuel and that the death of her husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case.

On appeal, the court applied the ruling on Climaco vs. Siy Uy finding the surviving spouse solidary liable.

Issues: Is the surviving spouse a solidary debtor for a lease she and her late husband entered into?

Ruling: No. For marriages governed by the rules of conjugal partnership of gains, an obligation entered into by the husband and wife is chargeable against their conjugal partnership and it is the partnership which is primarily bound for its repayment. (Rules of Court, Rule 79, §2) Thus, when the spouses are sued for the enforcement of an obligation entered into by them, they are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors such that the concept of joint or solidary liability, as between them, does not apply.

A creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is for him to file a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent.

The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.
—Article 1207, Civil Code

If from the law or the nature or the wording of the obligation the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed to be only joint, i.e., the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each debt being considered distinct from one another. (Article 1208, Civil Code)

However,

Should the lessees or sub-lessees refuse to vacate the leased property after the expiration of the lease period and despite due demands by the lessor, they can be held jointly and severally liable to pay for the use of the property. The basis of their solidary liability is not the contract of lease or sublease but the fact that they have become joint tortfeasors.
   —Abalos vs. Court of Appeals, GR 106029, Oct. 19, 1999.

Reading the pertinent portion of the contract, it is clear that the liability of the sublessees is merely joint. Since the obligation of the Manuel and Alipio spouses is chargeable against their respective conjugal partnerships, the unpaid balance should be divided into two.
__________
* Keywords: solidary obligation, joint obligation, conjugal partnership