JAVIER v OSMENA

Facts:

Florentino and Petrona were married. Petrona inherited 2 parcels of land from her parents with
usufructuary rights on the said property. Florentino succeeded the business of Petronas father.
He managed the same until he acquire indebts to Tomas Osmena. Unable to pay, Osmena
obtained the property thru a judgment which favored him ordering the sheriff to sell the 2
parcel of land in auction. Petrona sought to recover the property and want the sale be annulled.
Osmena contended that even if the land was separate property of Petrona, there is a
usufructuary rights using conjugal property funds.

Issues: WON debts should be paid out of fruits and revenue of the parcels of land which belong
to Wife exclusively

Held:

Yes. There is a natural presumption of fact that whatever Collated contributed towards
defrayment of the family expenses was contributed by him out of what he earned by
commission paid him for services rendered to his clients as commission merchant. Thus, the
debts also incurred will be presumed conjugal.

JAVIER v OSMENA

Facts:

Florentino Collantes was married to Petrona Javier who inherited from her parents 2 parcels of
land. To perfect her ownership, she acquired from her fathers second wife the usufructuary
right on properties for 3thou.Florentino, who succeeded Petronas father as a commission
merchant in their family business in Manila, acquired the debt of Petronas father and became
indebted to Tomas Osmena (one of the chief clients) in sum of four or five thou. Unable to pay,
judgment was rendered in favor of debtor Osmena. The sheriff despite the protests of Petrona
sold off the two parcels (separate property of Petrona) of land at an auction where Osmena
was the successful bidder. Petrona sought to have the sale annulled and to recover her
property. The defendant Osmena contended that even though land was separate property
of Petrona, the usurfructuary right belongs to the CP since it was purchased using CP funds.
Defendant prayed that the revenues from both properties, being CP, should be made liable for
the debt.

Issues: WON debts should be paid out of fruits and revenue of the parcels of land which belong
to Wife exclusively

Held:
Yes. There is a natural presumption of fact that whatever Collated contributed towards
defrayment of the family expenses was contributed by him out of what he earned by
commission paid him for services rendered to his clients as commission merchant. Thus, the
debts also incurred will be presumed conjugal. It is conclusive that the debt must be paid out
of CP since it is contracted by H during M and in exercise of the industry or profession by which,
moreover, he contributes towards the support of his family. These debts are not personal or
private debts at all.A1409 of CC: CP should be made liable for debts and obliges (no.1)
contracted during M by H and (no.5) for the support of family. To be clearer, the fruits of the
exclusive property belong to CP, right? As such, they are liable for the payment of M expenses.
Thus, it only follows that the creditor of the H may bring suit against the fruits and revenues of
the private property of W.As to whether the defendants prayer for an appointment of a
receiver is to be granted, A1984 says that the W has the right to manage her paraphernal
property and (A1412) says that H is the administrator of the CCP. Therefore, appointment of a
receiver shall deprive W and H of these rights. No need!