News

RAGEL says that in this case the debt will not be community but exclusive and we do not agree if it is not clarified that if it will be "in charge of the community of community" according to art. 1362 CC, but there will be no direct liability ex art. 1365 CC and 6 CCom, and therefore the creditor may not go directly against the property, but this does not make the debt private.

What happens in this case is that, as RED says, the creditor may go directly against the private property and the joint assets acquired as a result of the trade according to art. 1369 CC, not being applicable in this case the subsidiary nature of the latter with respect to the former as it is a joint and non-subsidiary responsibility of both, as would result from applying art. 1373 CC.

Now, we add, that does not prevent that the property not acquired with the results of the trade can be attacked, but, that if according to the criteria of subsidiarity of article 1373

In short, as can be deduced from the wording of art. 6 and following of the CCom is very deficient and deserves harsh censorship. What happens is that, as GIMÉNEZ DUART brilliantly points out, the writing of 1975 continues to be indebted to the historical drag of the old marital license that said reform abolished without further ado and without looking at its consequences. This is precisely the purpose of this work: to demonstrate that the 1975 and 1981 reform is insufficient in terms of property liability and implies in practice establishing a regime equal to the previous one, but not with a husband but with "two of those from before. 1975 ".

info@nexusgrupo.com

0034 965727960