CASES
DLSU CIVIL LAW REVIEW G01
A.Y. 2023-2024, 1st Semester
#
Subject Matter
Case Title
Ponente
WEEK 3: Overview of Property Relations
Relevant law(s) to the case
ACP Doctrine
CPG Doctrine
Person Assigned
Rights and Obligations of Spouses
1
2
Rights and Obligations of Goitia v. Campos-Rueda, G.R. No. 11263,
Spouses
November 2, 1916.
Arroyo v. Vasques-Arroyo 42 Phil 54
Trent, J.
Street, J.
3
Ilusorio vs. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789. May
12, 2000.
Pardo, J.
4
Rep. v Molina, G.R. No. 108763 February
13, 1997
Panginiban, J.
FC 68 – 71; FC 72, 100; 127; 101, NCC 921 (4), FC 69
FC 70, 94 (last par.), 122, 146
FC 70,194, 94 (1), 122, 146
FC 73 as amended by RA 10572 (May 24, 2013)
The husband still has a duty to support his wife even if the latter leaves the
conjugal home due the fault of the husband.
The wife has the obligation and duty, both moral and legal, to return to the
common home and cohabit with the husband. However, it is not within the
jurisdiction of the courts of this country to seek to compel one of the
spouses to cohabit with, and provide conjugal rights to, the other.
As a result, the Court cannot hold that Mariano B. Arroyo is entitled to the
unconditional and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital
domicile sought for, but he is unquestionably entitled to a judicial
declaration that his wife has presented herself without sufficient cause and
that it is her duty to return.
Even if the husband refuses to live with his wife, coverture is a matter
beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of
habeas corpus.
The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up
to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles
220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
Yu
De Ocampo
Dino
Eulogio
Basis for Property Relations of the Spouses
5
Marriage settlements
6
7
Donations propter
nuptias
Valencia v Loquiao, GR 122134, October
3, 2003
Tinga, J.
Delgado v. GQ Realty Development, G.R.
No. 241774, September 25, 2019
Caguioa, J.
Solis vs Solis, 53 Phil 912 [1928]
Avanceña, C.J.
8
Mateo vs Lagua, 29 SCRA 864
Reyes, J.
9
Cano v Cano, G.R. No. 188666, December
14, 2017
Sereno, J.
FC 74, 75, 130 (3); 103 (3)
FC 77, NCC 1357, 1358, NCC 709
Under the Old Civil Code, a donation propter nuptias must be made in a
public instrument where the property donated is specifically described, and
acceptance is not necessary for the validity of such donation. Under the New
Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be expressed in writing to be
enforceable, and implied acceptance of such donation is sufficient.
An Ante-nuptial agreement governs the property relations of the spouses.
The husband can no longer claim the property that he gave to his wife since
he discharged all his interest over all gifts that he had bestowed upon his
wife in the ante-nuptial agreement.
FC 81 cf. Art. 86 (1), FC 82 – 87, NCC Arts. 748-749, NCC 761, NCC 765; FC Donation propter nuptias shall be governed by the rules on donations under
Art. 50; 43 (3), FC 44; 61
the Civil Code. Thus, in order that a donation of real property may be valid,
it must be made in a public instrument. Moreover, the death of the donee
may be imposed as a resolutory condition to revoke the donation propter
nuptias.
Donation propter nuptias, being liberalities, remain subject to reduction of
inofficiousness upon the death of the donor, if they infringe the legitime of a
forced heir. To order that a donation may be reduced for being inofficious,
there must be proof that the value of the donated property exceeds that of
the disposable free portion plus the donee's share as legitime in the
properties of the donor. In this case, however, there was no sufficient
evidence to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation and to order its
reduction.
For donations propter nuptias made before the Family Code, acceptance in a
public instrument is not required. Implied acceptance is deemed sufficient.
For those made prior to the Family Code, donations propter nuptias are
subject to the rules on ordinary donations and must be accepted by the
donee in a public instrument.
Hernando
Josol
Laydia
Mendoza
Pagayatan
Comparing the ACP and the CPG
How do the CPG cases apply to the ACP
10
Muller v Muller, G.R. No. 149615,
August 29, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J. 1. When applicable: FC 75, 103 (3); 130 1. Commencement: (a) Marriages
An alien spouse cannot seek reimbursement for the funds that were
used to buy the property in the Philippines after the termination of the
ACP, even if it was included. To hold otherwise would be a violation of
the absolute disqualification of aliens from owning lands in the
Philippines.
Palabrica
11
Beumer v Amores, GR 195670, December
3, 2012
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Pandy
12
Abrenica v Abrenica, G.R. No. 180572,
June 18, 2012
13
Santos vs. Santos, G.R. No. 250774, June
16, 2021
Carandang, J.
14
Alexander vs Spouses Escalona, G.R. No.
256141. July 19, 2022 (en banc)
Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. 183622, July 4,
2012
Lopez, M.V., J.
A foreigner spouse married to a Filipina who admits that he is well aware of
the constitutional prohibition imposed upon foreigners in owning land in the
Philippines would not entitle him for reimbursement from the conjugal
property on the ground of equity.
Second marriage was on May 28 1998 and FC is applicable to their marriage.
They follow ACP by default. Thus, Art. 92, par. (3) of the Family Code
excludes from the community property the property acquired before the
marriage of a spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage;
and the fruits and the income, if any, of that property.
A property acquired by one spouse through onerous title during the
marriage is part of the absolute community of property. Thus, half of which
is owned by the other spouse. The Supreme Court held that the disturbance
compensation in a form of land was acquired by onerous title. Therefore,
half of the land, as part of the absolute community of property, is owned by
Maria, the spouse.
Any disposition or encumbrance of a conjugal property by one spouse must
be consented to by the other; otherwise, it is void.
"Net Profits" as contemplated in
"Net Profits" as contemplated in
Articles 102(4) of the FC in relation Articles 102(4) of the FC in relation
to forfeiture in Article 63 of the FC to forfeiture in Article 63 of the FC
are the same for both ACP and CPG are the same for both ACP and CPG
property regimes.
property regimes.
15
Absolute community of
property
Conjugal partnership of
gains
Sereno, J.
Reyes, J.
(3); 92 (3)
2. Commencement: FC 88
3. Waiver during marriage: FC 89
4. Waiver after marriage: FC 89 par. 2
cf NCC Art. 168, FC 136
5. Suppletory rules : FC 90; NCC
484-501
under FC, FC 107
(b) Marriages before FC, FC 105(2) Cf
FC 256
2. Waiver during marriage: cf. FC 88,
FC 89
3. Suppletory rules : FC 108; NCC
1767-1768
Here, the couple had no separate
properties and as such, nothing
would be returned to them after
settling the debts and obligations
incurred during their marriage.
Normally, what remains is that the
remainder should be divided equally
between the spouses and their
respective heirs. However, due to him
being a guilty party for cohabitating
with a third party, his share in the net
profits of the CPG is forfeited in
favor of their children by virtue of
FC Article 63(2).
Paras
Roxas
Sandoval
Sison
16
BPI v. Fernandez G.R. No.173134,
September 2, 2015
Brion, J.
Under the ACP property regime,
both spouses shall have the right to
administer communal property. In
this case, Baby had the right to
withdraw the funds even if the same
were to be considered communal
property because she had in her
possession the certificates of deposit
and she was one of the joint account
holder.
The argument of BPI that the
deposits are conjugal property was
not sustained by the Supreme Court
because under the express terms of
the certificates of deposits, if the
account is under the and/or terms
and that the certficate of deposits
were in the possession of one of the
depositors, the funds should have
been surrendered to the possessor.
Moreover, a joint depositor has the
right to ask for his/her share from
the preterminated deposits even if
the joint accounts contained conjugal
funds.
As to ACP, it must be proven first
Under CPG, all the properties of the
that the property was acquired during spouses are presumed part of the
the marriage in order for the
CPG in the absence of proof that it
presumption that the property
belongs exclusively to either of the
belongs to ACP to kick in.
spouses.
Young
17
Heirs of Jarque v Jarque, GR 196733, Nov.
21, 2018
Jardeleza, J.
18
Anastacio vs. Heirs , G.R. No. 224572,
August 27, 2020
Caguioa, J.
Under Art. 75 of the Family Code,
in the absence of a marriage
settlement or when the regime
agreed upon is void, the default
property regime under the Family
Code for Filipino Spouses is the
absolute community of property
regime.
Under Art. 105 (2) of the Family
Code, the Family Code "shall also
apply to the conjugal partnership
of gains already established before
the effectivity of the Family Code,
without prejudice to vested rights
already acquired in accordance
with the Civil Code or other laws."
(CPG also applies when the spouses
agree on CPG as their property regime
through marriage settlement)
De Ocampo
19
Esteban v Campano, G.R. No. 235364,
April 26, 2021
Carandang, J.
Under ACP, the transfer of
community property without the
authority of the court or written
consent of the other spouse is VOID.
However, the transaction will be
construed as a continuing offer on
the part of the consenting spouse and
the third person and may be
perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the
offer is withdrawn by either or both
offerors.
Under CPG, the rule on the transfer
of conjugal property without the
consent of the other spouse is the
same as ACP. However, the court in
this case made a distinction between
transfers made under the Family
Code and those made under the Civil
Code.
Dino
20
When Applicable /
Muller v Muller, G.R. No. 149615,
Commencement / Waiver August 29, 2006
during Marriage / Waiver
after Marriage /
Ynares-Santiago, J.
Under the Family Code, the transfer
of conjugal property without the
authority of the court or written
consent of the other spouse is VOID;
while under the Civil Code, the
transfer of conjugal property without
the wife's consent is merely
VOIDABLE. An action for
annulment must be brought by the
wife, during the marriage and within
10 years from the questioned
transaction.
An alien spouse who used his funds to buy a property in the Philippines
cannot later seek reimbursement after the termination of the ACP or CPG,
even if it was included. To allow such would constitute a circumvention of
the constitutional prohibition of aliens from owning lands in the Philippines.
Yu
Palabrica
21
22
23
g
Suppletory rules
Beumer v Amores, GR 195670, December
3, 2012
Abrenica v Abrenica, G.R. No. 180572,
June 18, 2012
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Sereno, J.
Santos vs. Santos, G.R. No. 250774, June
16, 2021
Carandang, J.
Buado vs. CA, G.R. No. 145222, April 24,
2009
Tinga,J.
24
25
Dar v Legasto, G.R. No. 143016, August
30, 2000
26
Cotoner vs. Revilla, G.R. No. 190901,
November 12, 2014
Kapunan, J.
Leonen, J.
Under ACP, the same principle
applies regarding the dissolution of
community property and
non-entitlement of the foreigner
spouse for going against the
Constitutional provision.
A foreigner spouse who is well aware
of the constitutional prohibition
against foreigners owning land and
who, because of such prohibition,
registers the property under the name
of his wife shows his intent to skirt
the Constitutional prohibition. As
such, in the dissolution of CPG, the
foreigner is deemed to never have
acquired any right over the subject
properties by reason of such
unconstitutional purchase.
Properties are assumed ACP unless it is proved that it is excluded. In this
case, it is excluded as the properties were acquired before the marriage of a
spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage under Art 92
(3).
The court prevented second wife from claiming properties that were
acquired by her late husband during his first marriage.
Absolute community of property shall consist of all the property owned by
the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired
thereafter, except property acquired by gratuitous title, among others, as
provided by Art. 93 (FC). In this case, the subject property was acquired by
Jose by onerous title during his marriage to Maria despite being denominated
as donation. Thus, it shall form part of the community property of Jose and
Maria and one-half of the property belongs to Maria.
Article 94(3) ACP is liable for
A spouse who is not a party to the
obligation and debts contracted by
suit but whose conjugal property is
either spouse without the consent of being executed on account of the
the other but benefited the family.
other spouse being the judgment
obligor cannot be considered as a
stranger if it redounded to the benefit
of the conjugal partnership.
Where a married couple is sued jointly over a property in which they have a
common interest, the signing of one of the spouses of the certification of
non-forum shopping is sufficient and is considered substantial compliance.
Under the Family Code, the
The sale of the property took place
administration and enjoyment of the before the effectivity of the Family
community property shall belong to Code. Under Art. 165 of the Civil
both spouses jointly. Nevertheless,
Code, the husband is the
the consent of the other spouse is
administrator of the conjugal
necessary in order to dispose of
partnership. In Art. 172 of the Civil
common property.
Code, the wife cannot bind the
conjugal partnership without the
husband's consent, except in cases
provided by law. In this case, the
signature of the husband was forged,
even if the signature of the wife was
authentic, her signature alone would
not bind the subject property since
the said transaction was made
without the consent of her husband.
Pandy
Paras
Roxas
Eulogio
Hernando
Josol
27
Matthews vs. Taylor, GR 164584, June 22,
2009
Nachura, J.
28
Heirs of Go v Servacio, GR 157537, Sept.
7, 2011
Bersamin, J.
29
Domingo vs. Molina, G.R. No. 200274,
April 20, 2016
Brion, J.
The Constitutional prohibition
against aliens acquiring public and
private lands in the Philippines would
apply in either ACP or CPG regime.
An alien husband cannot question the
validity of the lease agreement
entered into by his wife without his
consent, even if he contends that his
funds were used in the property's
Therefore, an alien husband cannot acquisition and improvement. Ruling
question the validity of the lease
otherwise would countenance indirect
agreement entered into by his wife
controversion of the constitutional
without his consent, even if he
prohibition on aliens acquiring
contends that his funds were used in private and public lands in the
the property's acquisition and
Philippines. If the property were to
improvement.
be declared conjugal, this would
accord the alien husband a substantial
interest and right over the land, as he
would then have a decisive vote as to
its transfer or disposition.
The same doctrine will apply under The disposition by sale of a portion
the ACP regime, as the requirement of the conjugal property by the
of prior liquidation does not
surviving spouse without the prior
prejudice vested rights.
liquidation mandated by Art 130 of
the Family Code is not necessarily
void if said portion has not yet been
allocated by judicial or extrajudicial
partition to another heir of the
deceased spouse. The requirement of
prior liquidation does not prejudice
vested rights. In this case, the SC
ruled that the sale was valid but only
up to the extent of the selling heirs'
undivided shares.
In the absence of a marriage
The Family Code is applicable in
settlement, or when the regime
conjugal partnerships established
agreed upon is void, the system of
before and after the effectivity of the
absolute community of property as
Family Code, provided that such
established in this Code shall govern. provisions of the Family Code is
without prejudice to vested rights
already acquired under the Civil Code
and other laws.
Laydia
Mendoza
Pagayatan
30
Uy v Estate of Fernandez, G.R. No.
200612, April 5, 2017
Reyes, J.
31
Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. 183622, July 4,
2012
Reyes, J.
32
Dino v Dino, GR 178044, January 19, 2011
Carpio, J.
33
Spouses Cueno v. Spouses Bautista, , G.R.
No. 246445, March 02, 2021
Caguioa, J.
ACP shall govern if there was no
marriage settlement or when the
regime agreed upon is void. The
commencement of the ACP between
spouses shall commence at the
precise moment that the marriage
was celebrated.
A CPG that was already established
prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code is applicable to Art. 130 which
states that upon dissolution of the
CPG due to the death of either
spouse, it should be liquidated in the
same proceeding for the settlement
of the estate of the deceased, or in
[Same treatment with CPG] Under
the absence thereof, by the surviving
Art. 103 of the FC, upon the
spouse within one year from the
termination of the marriage by death, death of the deceased spouse. Absent
the community propety shall be
any liquidation, disposition or
liquidated in the same proceeding for encumbrance of the CPG is void.
the settlement of the estate of the
deceased, or in the absence, by the
However, any disposition or sale
surviving spouse within one year
made by the surviving spouse of his
from the death of the deceased
or her undivided share shall be valid
spouse. Absent liquidation, any
and the buyer shall have the rights as
disposition or encumbrance of the
a co-owner.
community property involved in the
terminated marriage is void.
ACP as the presumptive regime in the Prior to the enactment of the Family
absence of marriage settlements arose Code, Article 119 provided that CPG
with the enactment of the Family
as found in the Civil Code would
Code, excepting those under Article govern property relations in the
92.
absence of marriage settlements or
void marriage settlements.
For marriages dissolved under Art. 36 of the Family Code, what would
govern thte liquidation of properties owned in common by the spouses
during the period of cohabitation are the rules on co-ownership.
Under Article 1413 of the Spanish
Articles 96 46 and 124 47 of the
Civil Code, the wife's consent was
Family Code unequivocally state that
not required for the sale of conjugal a disposition of community or
property as the husband's right to
conjugal property without the
administer and dispose of the same
consent of the other spouse is void
was considered "full, absolute and
but shall constitute a "continuing
complete."
offer on the part of the consenting
spouse and the third person, and may
be perfected as a binding contract
upon the acceptance by the other
spouse or authorization by the court
before the offer is withdrawn by
either or both offerors.
Palabrica
Sison
Pandy
Paras
34
Esteban v Campano, G.R. No. 235364,
April 26, 2021
35
Turla vs. Heirs of Patrocinio N. Dayrit,
G.R. No. 205743. October 6, 2021
36
Belcodero v. CA 227 SCRA 303
37
Sps. Estonina v. CA G.R. No. 111547, Jan.
27, 1997
Carandang, J.
Carandang, J.
Under ACP, the transfer of
community property without the
authority of the court or written
consent of the other spouse is VOID.
However, the transaction will be
construed as a continuing offer on
the part of the consenting spouse and
the third person and may be
perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the
offer is withdrawn by either or both
offerors.
Under ACP, when a spouse initially
did not give his or her consent on a
transaction involving a conjugal
property but subsequently gives it,
the contract shall be deemed
perfected. Otherwise, it shall be
considered void.
Vitug, J.
NCC ARTICLE 199. In the absence
of stipulation to the contrary, the
community shall consist of all present
and future property of the spouses
not excepted by law.
Francisco, J.
As per Article 93 of the Family Code,
property acquired during a marriage
(reckoned from marriages since the
enactment of the FC) are presumed
to belong to the absolute community,
unless it is proved otherwise or falls
under the exceptions under Article
92.
Under CPG, the rule on the transfer
of conjugal property without the
consent of the other spouse is the
same as ACP. However, the court in
this case made a distinction between
transfers made under the Family
Code and those made under the Civil
Code.
Under the Family Code, the transfer
of conjugal property without the
authority of the court or written
consent of the other spouse is VOID;
while under the Civil Code, the
transfer of conjugal property without
the wife's consent is merely
VOIDABLE. An action for
annulment must be brought by the
wife, during the marriage and within
10 years from the questioned
transaction.
The heirs, except the spouse who did
not give consent, cannot annul the
contract involving the conjugal
property unless they prove that
spouse who alienated it did it
fraudulently such as absence of
consideration. The Supreme Court
held in this case that there being
valuable consideration for the
transfer, the sale cannot be
considered as in fraud of Rita, even if
made without her consent.
Under both the new Civil Code
(Article 160) and the old Civil Code
(Article 1407), "all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to
the conjugal partnership, unless it be
proved that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or to the wife."
In order for the presumption in favor
of a conjugal partnership under
Article 160 of the Civil Code to apply,
proof of acquisition during the
marriage is a sine qua non requirement.
Here, petitioners were unable to
present proof that the property was
acquired during the marriage, and
merely offered such theory on the
basis that when title over the land was
issued, the spouses were already
married.
Dino
Roxas
Sandoval
Sison
38
Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. 183622, July 4,
2012
39
Castro vs. Miat, 397 SCRA 271
40
Spouses Carlos vs Tolentino, GR No
234533, June 27, 2018
41
Heirs of Jarque v Jarque, GR 196733, Nov.
21, 2018
Reyes, J.
Article 102(4) of the Family Code
refers to the term "net profits" in
relation to the dissolution of the ACP
and subsequent forfeiture of a guilty
spouse.
Puno, J.
Under the ACP, properties brought
to the marriage and properties
bought during the marriage shall
likewise be considered communal
property.
Velasco Jr., J.
The rules on ACP state that
donations to third persons are void
without the consent of the other
spouse, similiar to the rules on CPG.
Jardeleza, J.
Article 102(4) of the Family Code in
its use of the term "net profits" also
applies to dissolution of CPG under
FC Article 129.
Petitioner asks to clarify the meaning
of "net profits" earned by the
conjugal partnership for purposes of
forfeiture under FC Article 63.
Supposedly, since there is no other
provision under FC that defines "net
profits", then FC 102 applies.
Properties purchased during the
marriage shall be considered
conjugal. A spouse who contends
that a certain property was exclusively
his / hers, he / she has to prove that
the same was purchased before the
marriage or that when it was
purchased during the marriage, the
same was purchased through the
exclusive party of the spouse.
Under CPG, donations to third
persons are void, without consent of
the other spouse.
However, in this case, the court did
not declare a donation of conjugal
property to be wholly void due to the
lack of signature of one spouse in its
deed of donation. The court
explained that in consonance with
justice and equity, it is proper to
uphold the validity of the Deed of
Donation but only to the extent of
the consenting deceased spouse's 1/2
share in the subject property
especially when the conjugal
partnership had already been
terminated upon the death of the
consenting spouse.
Similar to CPG, in ACP, the net
Under CPG, upon the death of either
remainder of the absolute
spouse, the conjugal partnership is
community, shall also be divided
dissolved. The surviving spouse is
equally between the husband and
entitled to his/her 1/2 share in the
wife, unless a different portion or
partnership, while the remaining half
division was agreed upon in the
belongs to the estate of the deceased
marraige saettlements, or unless there which will be inherited by his/her
has been a waiver with regard to the forced heirs.
shares.
Sison
Young
Yu
Yu
42
Anastacio vs. Heirs , G.R. No. 224572,
August 27, 2020
Caguioa, J.
43
Spouses Cueno v. Spouses Bautista, , G.R.
No. 246445, March 02, 2021
Caguioa, J.
44
Esteban v Campano, G.R. No. 235364,
April 26, 2021
Carandang, J.
Neither spouse can dispose or
encumber ACP without authority of
the court or the written consent of
the other spouse, otherwise, the
encumbrance or disposition will be
deemed void.
The sale of congjugal property
requires the consent of both spouses.
The absence of the consent of one
renders the sale or disposition null
and void. In this case, the act that
Juan and Juliana were separated from
bed and board(a mensa et thoro) at
the time of the supposed sale of the
subject property by Juan to
petitioners did not exempt the
disposition from the requirement of
obtaining the other spouse's consent.
Likewise, since Juliana died before
acceptance is conveyed, the
continuing offer becomes ineffective
and could not have materialized into
a binding contract.
Art 173 remedy is not applicable in
Under CPG, the court held that
ACP.
Aguilar-Reyes case is to be followed
that sale of property without the
Articles 96 46 and 124 47 of the
consent of wife is voidable under Art
Family Code unequivocally state that 166 and the wife may initiate the
a disposition of community or
annulment of the sale within 10 yrs
conjugal property without the
from the transaction during the
consent of the other spouse is void
marriage under Art 173.
but shall constitute a "continuing
offer on the part of the consenting
spouse and the third person, and may
be perfected as a binding contract
upon the acceptance by the other
spouse or authorization by the court
before the offer is withdrawn by
either or both offerors.
Under ACP, the transfer of
Under CPG, the rule on the transfer
community property without the
of conjugal property without the
authority of the court or written
consent of the other spouse is the
consent of the other spouse is VOID. same as ACP. However, the court in
However, the transaction will be
this case made a distinction between
construed as a continuing offer on
transfers made under the Family
the part of the consenting spouse and Code and those made under the Civil
the third person and may be
Code.
perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or Under the Family Code, the transfer
authorization by the court before the of conjugal property without the
offer is withdrawn by either or both authority of the court or written
offerors.
consent of the other spouse is VOID;
while under the Civil Code, the
transfer of conjugal property without
the wife's consent is merely
VOIDABLE. An action for
annulment must be brought by the
wife, during the marriage and within
10 years from the questioned
transaction.
De Ocampo
Paras
Dino
45
Turla vs. Heirs of Patrocinio N. Dayrit,
G.R. No. 205743. October 6, 2021
Carandang, J.
46
Alexander vs Spouses Escalona, G.R. No.
256141. July 19, 2022 (en banc)
Lopez, M.V., J.
The conditional sale transaction
The law reserves the right to the wife
would have been void if the property in annulling a contract involving a
regime between the spouses is ACP. conjugal property which must be
brought during the marriage and
within ten years from the transaction.
In this case, their marriage had been
dissolved upon the death of
Patrocinio on December 16, 1991.
Not having been annulled, the Deed
of Sale dated January 11, 1991 in
favor of Ricardo is valid and binding.
ARTICLE 207. Neither spouse may Any disposition or encumbrance of a
alienate or encumber any common
conjugal property by one spouse
property without the consent of the must be consented to by the other;
other. In case of unjustifiable refusal otherwise, it is void.
by the other spouse, the courts may
grant the necessary consent.
Roxas
Sandoval
Presumptions
47
48
Presumptions
Tarrosa vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 185063.
July 23, 2009
Velasco, Jr., J.
Anastacio vs. Heirs , G.R. No. 224572,
August 27, 2020
Caguioa, J.
FC 93 cf NCC 160
FC 116
Article 93 of the FC: Property
acquired during the marriage is
presumed to belong to the ACP,
unless it is proven that it is one of
those excluded.
If the title to the property was
obtained during the effectivity of the
marriage, the presumption of
ownership by the conjugal property
will arise under the law. To overturn
this presumption, the evidence
NCC 160: The presumption is that of presented must be compelling,
CPG, unless proven that it is owned unambiguous and convincing, and it
exclusively by one of the spouses. FC must be clear proof of exclusive
116, on the other hand, provides for ownership, burden of which lies with
the existence of the presumption in the party asserting it.
favor of CPG regardless of whether
such acquisition is made, contracted, Failed to overturn presumption since
or registered in the name of one or
there was no evidence on the source
both spouses, unless proven.
for funding.
Under Art. 93 of the Family Code, it Under Art. 116 of the Family Code, a
also provides that the presumption
rebuttable presumption is established,
will apply if the proponent proves
where the party who invokes that
that the property in question was
presumption must first prove that the
acquired during the marriage, unless property was acquired during the
it is proved to be one of those
marriage. Once the condition sine
excluded. Thus, the spouse who
qua non that the property was
alleges that property is exclusive must acquired during the marriage is
likewise prove exclusivity.
established, then the presumption
that all properties acquired during the
marriage are deemed conjugal, until
the contrary is proved.
Moreover, it is not necessary to prove
that the property was acquired with
conjugal funds and the presumption
still applies even when the manner in
which the property was acquired is
unclear. The presumption is created
even if the acquisition appears to
have been made, contracted or
registered in the name of one spouse.
Sison
De Ocampo
49
Strong Fort Warehousing Corporation vs
Banta, G.R. Nos. 222369 and 222502.
November 16, 2020
Lopez, J.
50
Cordova vs. Ty, G.R. No. 246255. February
03, 2021
Delos Santos, J.
51
Alexander vs Spouses Escalona, G.R. No.
256141. July 19, 2022 (en banc)
Lopez, M.V., J.
The properties acquired during the
marriage by the spouses shall be
presumed to be communal.
The properties acquired during the
marriage by the spouses shall be
presumed to be conjugal.
As such, the written consent of the
spouse shall be needed for all
dispositions or encumbrances of
communal properties made by the
other spouse.
As such, the written consent of the
spouse shall be needed for all
dispositions or encumbrances of
conjugal properties made by the
other spouse.
In this case, the forgery of the wife's
signature would still make the real
estate mortgage void but the contract
of loan executed by the husband shall
subsist.
Under ACP, it must be proven first
that the property was acquired during
the marriage in order for the
presumption that the property
belongs to ACP to kick in. To rebut
the presumption, it must be proven
that the property is one of those
excluded from the ACP.
In this case, the forgery of the wife's
signature made the real estate
mortgage void but the contract of
loan executed by the husband
subsisted.
Under CPG, there is no need to
prove that the properties were
acquired with funds of the
partnership. Even if it is unclear how
the properties were acquired, the
presumption will still apply, and the
properties will still be considered
conjugal. In order to rebut the
presumptive conjugal nature of the
property, a movant must present
strong, clear and convincing evidence
of exclusive ownership of one of the
spouses. The burden of proving that
the property belongs exclusively to
the wife or to the husband rests upon
the party asserting it.
In ACP, ARTICLE 199. In the
Article 160 of the Civil Code is
absence of stipulation to the contrary, explicit that "[a]ll property of the
the community shall consist of all
marriage is presumed to belong to
present and future property of the
the conjugal partnership, unless it be
spouses not excepted by law.
proved that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or to the wife." The
properties acquired during the
lifetime of the husband and wife are
presumed to be conjugal. The
presumption may be rebutted only
through clear and convincing
evidence. The burden of proof rests
upon the party asserting exclusive
ownership of one spouse.
Inclusions/Constitution
Young
Yu
Sandoval
52
53
54
Inclusions/Constitution Titan v David, G.R. No. 169548, March 15,
2010
Villanueva vs CA, 427 SCRA 439
Berciles v. GSIS,128 SCRA 53, cf. FC 11
Del Castillo, J.
Carpio, J.
Guerrero, J.
FC 91
Under Art. 91 of the Family Code,
the community property should
consist of all property possessed or
acquired by the spouses at the time of
the marriage celebration or
subsequently, unless otherwise stated
in the Chapter of absolute
community property or in the
marriage settlements.
Under Art. 116 of the Family Code,
unless proven otherwise, any
property obtained during the
marriage is deemed to be conjugal,
regardless of whether the acquisition
appears to have been made,
negotiated for, or registered in the
name of one or both spouses. In this
case, Titan failed to overturn the
presumption that the property,
Likewise, Art. 93 of the Family Code purchased during the spouses'
also provides that there is a
marriage, was part of the conjugal
presumption that all property
partnership.
acquired during the marriage shall
form part of the ACP property
Hence, the sale to Titan required the
regime unless it is proved to be one consent of both spouses because
of those excluded. Thus, the spouse under Art. 124 FC, where any
who alleges that property is exclusive disposition or encumbrance of
must likewise prove exclusivity.
conjugal property must have the
written consent of the other spouse,
otherwise said disposition is deemed
void.
Under ACP (Art. 93) Property
Under CPG (Art. 116), all property
acquired during the marriage by
acquired by the spouses during the
either spouse is presumed to belong marriage, regardless in whose name
to the community, unless it is proved the property is registered, is
that it is one of those excluded.
presumed conjugal unless the
contrary is proved. The properties
must first be proven to have been
acquired during the marriage before
they are presumed conjugal.
Article 93 Property acquired during
the marriage is presumed to belong
to the ACP unless proven to be
excluded.
In this case, the legitimate wife was
able to prove that the property in
question was acquired during the
marriage. Hence, the court applied
the presumption that it is conjugal.
As to the retirement premiums, there
being no proof that the premiums
were paid from the exclusive funds of
the deceased husband, the law
provides that one-half of the amount
belongs to the wife as her property in
the conjugal partnership and the
other half shall go to the estate of the
deceased husband which shall in turn
be distributed to his legal heirs.
De Ocampo
Dino
Eulogio
55
Jovellanos v CA, G.R. No. 100728 June
18, 1992
56
Munoz, Jr. v Ramirez, GR 156125, August
25, 2010
57
Padilla v Padilla, October 4, 1943
Regalado, J.
Brion, J.
Bocobo, J.
Art. 91 of the FC provides that the
ACP is composed of all property
owned by the spouses during the
celebration of the marriage or
acquired thereafter. Thus, when
ownership over the property acquired
via installment is vested determines
whether it is part of the ACP. In such
properties, ownership is vested upon
full payment of the purchase price.
Thus, if full payment is made during
the celebration of the marriage, or is
made thereafter, then the property
belongs to the ACP.
Ownership is vested in a contract to
sell only upon full payment of the
purchase price. Where the property
has been possessed by the husband
during the marriage, but the purchase
price for the same has not yet been
paid, such property cannot be
considered as part of the conjugal
property of the spouses. It will only
be considered part thereof when the
purchase price has been fully paid. In
this case, the purchase price was only
fully paid during the second marriage.
Still, according to Art. 118, if part of
the installment was paid by the CPG
of the first marriage, reimbursement
to the CPG is required.
Art. 92 of the FC: The following shall The property Erlinda inherited from
be excluded from the community
his father is excluded from the
property: (1) Property acquired
community property since it is
during the marriage by gratuitous title acquired by gratuitous title. The
by either spouse, and the fruits as
property is an exclusive property of
well as the income thereof, if any,
Erlinda. With regard to the
unless it is expressly provided by the contention that Eliseo introduced
donor, testator or grantor that they
improvements to the property, under
shall form part of the community
Art. 120 of the FC, should the cost of
property. The property Erlinda
improvement be more than the value
inherited from his father is excluded of the property at the time of
from the community property since it improvement, the entire property
is acquired by gratuitous title
shall belong to the conjugal
partnership, subject to
reimbursement of the value of the
property. However, the improvement
introduced by Eliseo did not even
reach 1/4 of the value of the
property. Thus, it remained exlucsive
property of Erlinda.
Under the ACP regime, properties
purchased with the exclusive money
of the wife are excluded from the
ACP.
Properties purchased from the wife's
exclusive funds must be adjudged
paraphernal, despite the fact that the
certificates of title are in the names of
both spouses.
Hernando
Josol
Laydia
58
Padilla v Paterno, December 26, 1961
Reyes, J.
Under the ACP regime, properties
purchased using the exclusive money
of the wife during the marriage are
excluded from the ACP.
59
Coingco v Flores, 82 Phil. 284
Feria, J.
In ACP, the community property
shall consist of all the property
owned by the spouses at the time of
the celebration of the marriage or
acquired thereafter.
Upon the dissolution of marriage, the
husband or his heirs may be
compelled to make immediate
restitution of the paraphernal
property which has been turned over
to the husband for administration. In
this case, when the husband died, the
marriage was dissolved, and his heir
was bound to return the paraphernal
properties of the widow, and from
that moment, any income or fruit
derived from said paraphernal
properties belonged to the OWNER
thereof. These retroact to the time of
death of the husband, and thus, the
widow must be reimbursed from that
time.
A building constructed by the
conjugal partnership on land
belonging to one of the spouses does
not automatically make the land
conjugal property. The building may
be conjugal, but upon dissolution of
the partnership, the land may or may
not be conjugal, depending on the
result of the liquidation.
Mendoza
Pagayatan
Exclusions
Exclusions
FC 92; FC 95
FC 109
Management of exclusive property
60
Management of exclusive Laperal v. Katigbak, 10 SCRA 493
property
Regala, J.
FC 143-146
(a) By the spouse-owner, FC 110
(b) By the other spouse, FC 110 2nd
par; FC 142, 75, 227
Under ACP, pursuant to Art. 92 of
the FC, the property for the personal
and exclusive use of either spouse
shall not form part of the community
property. However, jewelry shall form
part of community property.
Art. 110 of the FC states that spouses
shall retain exclusive control and
management of their exclusive
properties, unless during marriage
either spouse transferred the
administration to the other by means
of a public instrument and recorded
it the registry of property of the place
where the property is located.
In this case, the husband cannot bind
the paraphernal property and use it to
satisfy his debts, unless the powers of
administration have been transferred
to him. The absence of proof of
powers of administration to the
husband gives the wife to continue
exercising exclusive control and
management of the same.
Palabrica
61
Francisco v CA, G.R. No. 102330, 25
November 1998
Quisumbing, J.
62
Tan v Andrade, GR 171904, Aug 7, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
63
Veloso v. Martinez, 28 Phil 255
Johnson, J.
64
Berciles v. GSIS,128 SCRA 53, cf. FC 115
Guerrero, J.
65
Plata v. Yatco, 12 SCRA 718
66
Veloso v. Martinez, supra
67
Manotok Realty v. CA, 149 SCRA 372
Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Johnson, J.
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
Property already owned by a spouse
prior to a marriage and subsequently
brought to the marriage is considered
to be separate property. Acquisitions
which are made by lucrative title refer
to those which have been gratuitously
acquired and those acquired by the
spouse through donation, devise,
legacy, or inheritance.
ACP is also terminated upon death of CPG was terminated upon death of
either spouse
husband. Wife's declaration that she
is the absolute owner was not
disputed, hence the properties were
exclusive properties of wife.
In ACP, jewelries shall form part of A jewelry inhereted by the wife shall
the community property in
be considered as her sole and
accordance with Art. 92 (2) of the
separate property unless she had
Family Code.
delivered it properly to her husband
with the intent that he might
administer it properly. The Supreme
Court held that since the requisites
are absent, she is entitled to the
possession of the jewels.
Under Art. 91 of the Family Code,
the absolute community property
shall consist of all the property
owned by the spouses at the time
of the celebration of the marriage
or acquired thereafter
In ACP, all present and future
properties of either spouse shall
belong to the community property of
the spouses as long as it is not one of
those excepted by law.
Absent proof of contrary, the
retirement premiums also belong to
the conjugal property of the spouses.
In this case, 1/2 shall go to the
surviving spouse and the other, to the
legal heirs of the deceased person.
If the property regime is that of ACP, Conveyance of paraphernal property
Articles 143-146 of the FC would
by a spouse to a third person and
apply suppletorily.
subsequent reconveyance back to her
does not transform it to conjugal
Applying to the same facts, Article
property, unless it is proven that the
145 would be applicable, in that it
reconveyance came from conjugal
would remain paraphernal property funds.
and that it may be owned, disposed,
possessed, administered and enjoyed
without the consent of the other
spouse. It also would not convert the
property to that of the absolute
community, especially if agreed upon
as separate by both spouses.
Under ACP, property acquired during The jewels were the sole and separate
the marriage are presumed to be part property of the wife, acquired from
of the community property.
her mother, and in the absence of
further proof, it must be presumed
that they constituted a part of her
paraphernal property.
Under ACP, ARTICLE 206. The
If the paraphernal property of the
ownership, administration, possession dead spouse is sold by the surviving
and enjoyment of the common
spouse, without the latter being
property belong to both spouses
appointed as administrator nor being
jointly. In case of disagreement, the the owner, such sale is deemed void
courts shall settle the difficulty.
ab initio and cannot be ratified.
Pandy
Paras
Roxas
Sandoval
Sison
Roxas
Sandoval
68
Ong vs CA, 204 SCRA 297
Paras, J.
Applying Article 145 of the Family
Code, the earnings of a spouse from
their separate estate are theirs. It is
silent on the scenario contemplated
in Ong.
Since profits earned by the wife from
her business go to the conjugal
partnership, it would only be just and
equitable that the obligations
contracted by the wife in relation to
her business may also be chargeable
not only against her paraphernal
property but also against the conjugal
property of the spouses.
Sison
Encumbrance/disposition of exclusive property
69 Encumbrance/disposition Wong et al. v. IAC 200 SCRA 792
of exclusive property
70
Ching vs CA, G.R. No. 124642. February
23, 2004
Fernan, CJ.
Callejo Sr., J.
FC 143-146, NCC 1490,1782.
FC 111 as amended by RA 10572, FC
112, NCC 1490
Under the ACP property regime,
disposition of communal property
shall bear the consent of both
spouses. In this case, Katrina, the
estranged wife, could not validly
attach communal property to the
public auction since her assets in the
communal property is merely
inchoate in nature.
Under the Civil Code (before the
effectivity of the Family Code on
August 3, 1988), a wife may bind the
conjugal partnership only when she
purchases things necessary for the
support of the family or when she
borrows money for the purpose of
purchasing things necessary for the
support of the family if the husband
fails to deliver the proper sum; when
the administration of the conjugal
partnership is transferred to the wife
by the courts or by the husband and
when the wife gives moderate
donations for charity. Having failed
to establish that any of these
circumstances occurred, the Wongs
may not bind the conjugal assets to
answer for Katrina's personal
obligation to the Wongs.
Under ACP, each spouse retains
Under the conjugal partnership of
control over their exclusive property, gains, property even if registered in
and the other spouse may not bnd
the name of one spouse is presumed
such property unless authorized by
conjugal and a creditor seeking to
the spouse who owned the exclusive claim that such property is
prooperty or by the court.
paraphernal must prove that the
property is exclusive property of the
debtor spouse. Being conjugal
property, it cannot be levied upon to
answer for the debts of the debtor
spouse absent proof that the debt
redounded to the benefit of the
conjugal partnership.
Young
Yu
71
Anastacio vs. Heirs , G.R. No. 224572,
August 27, 2020
Caguioa, J.
Neither spouse can dispose or
encumber ACP without authority of
the court or the written consent of
the other spouse, otherwise, the
encumbrance or disposition will be
deemed void.
Under 109 of the Family Code, it
provides instances where the
properties are exclusive properties of
the spouse: ((1) That which is
brought to the marriage as his or her
own; (2) That which each acquires
during the marriage by gratuitous
title; (3) That which is acquired by
right of redemption, by barter or by
exchange with property belonging to
only one of the spouses; and (4) That
which is purchased with exclusive
money of the wife or of the husband.
This case does not fall within any of
the four instances. Thus, the consent
of Juliana is required, otherwise said
disposition or encumbrance is
deemed void.
De Ocampo
Property bought on installment
72
73
Property bought on
installment
Jovellanos v CA, G.R. No. 100728 June 18,
1992
Regalado, J.
Tarrosa vs. De Leon, GR 185063, July 23,
2009
Velasco, Jr., J.
FC Art. 118, 119
Ownership is vested in a contract to sell only upon full payment of the
purchase price. Where the property has been possessed by the husband
during the marriage, but the purchase price for the same has not yet been
paid, such property cannot be considered as part of the conjugal property of
the spouses. It will only be considered part thereof when the purchase price
has been fully paid. In this case, the purchase price was only fully paid during
the second marriage. Still, the children of the first marriage cannot be
deprived of such property for a portion of the payments made for the
property came from the first marriage. Art. 118 provides that any amount
advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be
reimbursed.
Under Art. 118 of the Family Code, property bought on installments paid
partly from exclusive funds and partly from CPG funds, belongs to the
buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage and to the
conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the marriage.
However, it must be noted that reimbursement to the CPG is required. In
this case, the full payment of the conditional contract was made during the
marriage. Thus, ownership was transferred only during the marriage and the
questioned property is considered a conjugal property.
Improvements on property
Hernando
De Ocampo
74
Improvements on
property
Munoz, Jr. v Ramirez, GR 156125, August
25, 2010
75
Padilla v Padilla, October 4, 1943
76
77
Brion, J.
NCC 445, 446.
FC 120
Under ACP, the land remains
paraphernal and the improvements
shall belong to the owner of the land,
subject to reimbursement to ACP.
Bocobo, J.
Under the ACP regime, ordinary
accession applies. Therefore, as a
general rule, the ownership of the
improvements (i.e., building) follows
that of the land upon which it is built.
(NCC, Art. 445) However, when
common funds are used to construct
the building over the exclusive
property of the wife, NCC Art. 448
applies.
Padilla v Paterno, December 26, 1961
Reyes, J.
Under the ACP regime, properties
purchased using the exclusive money
of the wife during the marriage are
excluded from the ACP. A payment
of indemnity would be required for
the improvements, pursuant to Art.
448 of the Civil Code.
Coungco v Flores, 82 Phil. 284
Feria, J.
Under the ACP regime, property
acquired before the marriage by
either spouse, when such spouse has
legitimate descendants by a former
marriage, are excluded from the ACP,
together with the fruits and income
thereof. Thus, despite the
improvements on the property, the
land is still considered the exclusive
property of the spouse.
Charges and Obligations
The wife's exclusive property shall
belong to CPG when the cost of the
improvement and any resulting
increase in value are more than the
value of the exclusive property at the
time of the improvement. The
owner-spouse is entitled to
reimbursement of the value of the
property at the time of the
improvement. However, the wife here
retained ownership of the property
because the cost of improvement was
paid for through monthly salary
deductions of the husband, which
was not sufficient to cover the entire
amount of the house. Thus, the
property remained paraphernal,
subject to reimbursement.
The ownership of the land is retained
by the wife until she is paid the value
of the lot, as a result of the
liquidation of the conjugal
partnership. The mere construction
of a building from common funds
does not convey the ownership of the
wife's land to the conjugal
partnership. Such act of constructing
a building over the wife's land is
simply an exercise of the right of
usufruct pertaining to the conjugal
partnership.
The improvements on property
accrue to the owner of the land. In
this case, the widow was the sole
owner of the paraphernal properties
as those properties never became
conjugal since the conjugal
improvements on the subject
properties were destroyed before they
could be reimbursed to the widow.
The widow is also the sole owner of
all the income from the said
properties that accrued during the
administration by the administratrix
of the deceased husband's estate.
The construction of a building during
marriage on land belonging to one of
the spouses does not ipso facto make
the land a conjugal property. The
conjugal partnership, however, may
acquire the land by paying the value
therefore.
Dino
Laydia
Mendoza
Hernando
78
Charges and Obligations Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs De Garcia, 30
SCRA 111
Fernando, J.
79
Gelano vs CA, 103 SCRA 90
De Castro, J.
80
G-Tractors, Inc., vs CA, 135 SCRA 192
Cuevas, J.
81
Francisco v Gonzales, G.R. No. 177667,
September 17, 2008
Austria-Martinez, J.
82
Buado vs. CA, G.R. No. 145222, April 24,
2009
Tinga, J.
FC 94
FC 121, 122, 123
Art. 94. The absolute community of
property shall be liable for: (3) Debts
and obligations contracted by either
spouse without the consent of the
other to the extent that the family
may have been benefited. This is not
true in this case since the husband, in
acting as a guarantor or surety for
another, did not act for the benefit of
the family.
The only obligations that are
chargeable against the conjugal
property are those incurred in the
legitimate pursuit of career,
profession, or business, with the
honest belief that it is for the benefit
of the family. This is not true in this
case since the husband, in acting as a
guarantor or surety for another, did
not act for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.
Obligations contracted by the
Obligations contracted by the
husband during marriage, even
husband during marriage, even
without the consent of the wife,
without the consent of the wife,
which redounded to the benefit of
which redounded to the benefit of
the family, are chargeable against the the family, are chargeable against the
ACP.
conjugal property.
The ACP will only be liable for debts If the husband incurs an
and obligations contracted during the indebtedness in the legitimate pursuit
marriage by the designated
of his career or profession or suffers
administrator-spouse for the benefit losses in a legitimate business, the
of the community, or both spouses, conjugal partnership must equally
or by one spouse with the consent of bear the indebtedness and the losses,
the other; or for debts and
unless he deliberately acted to the
obligations contracted by either
prejudice of his family. In this case,
spouse without the consent of the
the SC held that the indebtedness of
other to the extent that the family
the husband is chargeable to the
may have been benefited.
conjugal partnership.
The ACP is liable for the personal
A personal debt of one spouse
debts incurred by either of the
cannot bind the conjugal partnership,
spouses, in case of absence or
unless the debt was incurred for the
insufficiency of the exclusive
support of the family.
property of the debtor-spouse, the
payment of which shall be considered
as advances to be deducted from the
share of the debtor-spouse upon
liquidation of the community.
Liabilities incurred by either spouses by Payment of personal debts contracted
reason of crime or quasi-delict is
by either of the spouses before or
chargeable to the ACP.
during the marriage shall not be
charged in to the CPG unless it
redounds to the benefit of the family.
Except on cases of absence or
insuffiency of the exclusive property,
the CPG has no duty to make
advance payments for the liability of
the debtor spouse.
Josol
Laydia
Mendoza
Pagayatan
Eulogio
83
Mariano vs CA, 174 SCRA 59
Narvasa, J.
84
Ayala vs CA, 286 SCRA 272
Martinez, J.
85
Ching vs CA, 423 SCRA 356
Callejo Sr., J.
86
Homeowners vs. Dailo, G.R. 153802,
Mar.11, 2005
Tinga, J.
87
Pana vs. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No.
164201, December 10, 2012
Abad, J.
In Art. 94 of the FC, the ACP shall
be liable to all debts and obligations
contracted during marriage by one
spouse with the consent of the other
and where the family may have
benefitted. If such is insufficient, the
spouses shall be solidarily liable for
the unpaid balance with their separate
properties.
The conjugal partnership of the
spouses, as provided under Art. 121,
FC, shall be liable for the debts and
obligations by either spouse where
the cause of said liability redounded
to the benefit of the family.
In this case, the wife engaged in
business with the husband’s consent,
and the income derived was used for
the support of the family. Thus, the
liability of the conjugal assets to
respond for the wife’s obligations
cannot be disputed.
In the absence of proof that an
Art. 94(3) of the Family Code
indemnity agreement executed by a
provides that the absolute
community property shall be liable spouse redounds to the benefit of his
or her family, then such undertaking
for debts and obligations
is not a conjugal debt but an
contracted by either spouse
obligation personal to the spouse. In
without the consent of the other this case, the Court denied the claim
to the extent that the family may over the conjugal properties since the
have been benefited;
benefits claimed are not those
contemplated under Art. 161 of the
Civil Code since these are mere
by-products or a spin-off of the loan
itself.
ACP provides for the similar
provision that absolute community of
property is not liable for
debtor-spouse liability if it did not
redound to the benefit of the family
The benefits contemplated by Art
161 must be those directly resulting
from the loan and cannot merely be a
by-product or a spin-off of the loan
itself. Thus, the conjugal properties is
not liable for the liabilities of the
debtor-spouse.
In accordance with Art. 94 (3), the
For the subject property belonging to
community of property shall be liable conjugal property to be held liable,
for debts and obligations contracted the obligation contracted by the late
without the consent of the other
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. must have
spouse ONLY to the extent that the redounded to the benefit of the
family may have been benefitted.
conjugal partnership. The Supreme
Court held that there's no evidence
that the obligation redounded to the
benefit of the family.
In ACP, ARTICLE 205 of the NCC. Article 121 of the FC allows the
Indemnities that must be paid by
payment of criminal indemnities
either spouse on account of a crime imposed on the guilty spouse out of
or of a quasi-delict shall be paid from the partnership even before it is
the common assets, without any
liquidated. However, Art. 22 of FC
obligation to make reimbursement.
provides: “at the time of liquidation
of the partnership, such offending
spouse shall be charged for what has
been paid for the purposes
above-mentioned.”
Palabrica
Pandy
Paras
Roxas
Sandoval
88
Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Del
Rosario, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013
Perez, J.
89
De Los Santos v Abejon, G.R. No. 215820,
March 20, 2017
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
90
Costuna vs. Domondon, 180 SCRA 333
Sarmiento, J.
91
Jader-Manalo v Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978,
January 23, 2002
Kapunan, J.
A collection case can proceed and the
demands of a creditor can be satisfied
by the surviving spouse, even without
impleading the estate of the husband.
The estate of the deceased spouse is
not an indispensable party to the
collection case when the obligation of
the spouses are solidary in nature..
If the regime is CPG, the estate of the
deceased spouse is an indispensable
party to a collection case, since the
liquidation process of the CPG is
different under Article 129(2) of the
FC.
In specific, 129(2) first requires that
the amounts advanced by the CPG in
payment of obligations of either
spouse (solidary liability
inclulded) be first credited to the
conjugal partnership as an asset, and
129(4) requires that the debts and
obligations of the partnership be first
paid out of conjugal assets. If the
assets are insufficient, then such
debts can be deducted from separate
properties.
Under the ACP regime, the
The conjugal partnership shall be
communal property shall also be
liable for all the debts and obligations
liable for all debts and obligations
contracted during the marriage by
contracted during the marriage. The both spouses. In cases of death by
death of either spouse does not
either spouse, the estate shall be the
extinguish the death and the creditor one to be liable for the debt and not
may file a claim against the estate of the heirs. In this case, the husband
the decedent and the surviving
died so the creditors may file a claim
spouse.
against the estate and against the
surviving spouse.
Under ACP, debts and obligations
In CPG, hospital and medical
contracted by either spouses are
expenses of one or both spouses are
chargeable against the ACP, to the
chargeable to the conjugal
extent that the family may have been partnership. For a transaction to be
benefited.
chargeable to the conjugal
partnership, it is enough that it would
result to some discernible advantage
or go to the conjugal partnership,
directly or indirectly. It need not be
quantified into pesos or square
meters of real property.
The absence of consent of one of the The absence of consent of one of the
spouses renders the entire sale null
spouses renders the entire sale null
and void, including the sale of the
and void, including the sale of the
portion of the conjugal property
portion of the conjugal property
pertaining to the spouse who
pertaining to the spouse who
contracted the sale. Mere awarness
contracted the sale. Mere awarness
does not equate to consent.
does not equate to consent.
Sison
Young
Yu
De Ocampo
92
Carlos vs. Abelardo, 380 SCRA 361
Kapunan, J.
Under ACP, the community property
is liable for debts and obligations
contracted by either spouse without
the consent of the other to the extent
that the family may have been
benefitted.
93
People v. Lagrimas, G.R. No. L-25355,
August 28, 1969
Fernando, J.
Article 94(9) Liabilities incurred by
either spouse by reason of crime or a
quasi-delict,in case of absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive
property of the debtor spouse, the
payment of which shall be considered
as advances to be deducted from the
share of the debtor spouse upon
liquidation of the ACP.
94
Pana vs. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No.
164201, December 10, 2012
Abad, J.
Art. 199 of the NCC, all present and
future properties of each spouse shall
form part of their common property
with the exceptions in Art. 201.
Dar v Uy vs. CA, 346 SCRA 246
Pardo, J.
Under CPG, a loan contracted by the
wife is the liability of the conjugal
partnership, even if the husband
refused to acknowledge the loan,
because the loan redounded to the
benefit of the family. The loan was
used to purchase the house and lot
which became the conjugal home of
the spouses and his family. Hence,
CPG is liable; or in case it is
insufficient, the spouses are solidarily
liable with their separate properties.
Fines and indemnities imposed upon
either of the husband and wife may
be enforced against the parnership
after responsibilities under Article
161 (now Article 121 FC) have been
covered, if the spouse who was
bound should have no exclusive
property it should be insufficient.
The period which liability may be
enforeced presupposes that the CPG
still exist. The law speaks of
partnership assets.
Art. 142 of the OCC, it is only the
fruits from their separate properties
and income shall be placed in their
common property.
Dino
Eulogio
Sandoval
Administration and Enjoyment
95
Administration and
Enjoyment
(a) Joint administration, FC 96; FC 90
(b) Sole administration
(1) incapacity, FC 96 (2) – no court
order
(2) separation in fact FC 100 (3), 253 –
with court order
(3) abandonment, FC 101, 253 – with
court order
(4) pendency of legal separation
proceeding, FC 61 – with court order
(a) Joint administration, FC 124 cf. FC Same.
142 (b) Sole administration
(1) Incapacity, FC 124, 253
(2) Separation in fact, FC 127(3), 253
(3) Abandonment, FC 101, 128, 253
(4) Pendency of legal separation
proceedings, FC 61
A wife who assumes sole powers of
adminstration has the same powers
and duties of a guardian under the
Rules of Court. A spouse that wishes
to sell real property as an
administrator of the conjugal
property must follow the procedure
for the sale of the ward's estate
required of judicial guardians under
the Rules of Court.
Hernando
96
Sabalones v. CA 230 SCRA 79
97
Esteban vs. Campano, G.R. No. 235364,
April 26, 2021
98
Tuazon vs. Fuentes, G.R. No. 241699,
August 04, 2021
99
Legasto, G.R. No. 143016, August 30, 2000
100
Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658
Cruz, J.
Carandang, J.
Inting, J.
Kapunan, J.
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Same.
The law does indeed grant to the
spouses joint administration over the
conjugal properties as clearly
provided in Article 124 of the Family
Code. However, Article 61 also states
that after a petition for legal
separation has been filed, the trial
court shall, in the absence of a
written agreement between the
couple, appoint either one of the
spouses or a third person to act as the
administrator. Although no formal
designation of the administrator has
been made, such designation was
implicit in the decision of the trial
court denying the petitioner any share
in the conjugal properties (and thus
also disqualifying him as
administrator thereof)
Under ACP, where one spouse
Under CPG, where one spouse
disposes a community property
disposes a conjugal property without
without authority of the court or
authority of the court or written
written consent of the other spouse, consent of the other spouse, the
the disposition is void. However, the disposition is void. However, the
transaction shall be construed as a
transaction shall be construed as a
continuing offer and may be
continuing offer and may be
perfected upon acceptance of by the perfected upon acceptance of by the
other spouse or authorization by the other spouse or authorization by the
court before the offer is withdrawn. court before the offer is withdrawn.
Note: the court made a distinction
between transfers without the
consent of the other spouse under
the Family Code, which is void; and
transfers made under the Civil Code,
which is merely voidable.
Same rule applies for both ACP and Same rule applies for both ACP and
CPG: Before a spouse could convey CPG: Before a spouse could convey
common property in case of the
conjugal property in case of the
incapacity or inability of the other
incapacity or inability of the other
spouse to participate in the
spouse to participate in the
administration, the latter's written
administration, the latter's written
consent or court authority must be
consent or court authority must be
obtained. Otherwise, the disposition obtained. Otherwise, the disposition
or encumbrance shall be void.
or encumbrance shall be void.
If the spouses were sued jointly as "Mr. and Mrs." over a property that
belongs to their absolute community of property, the Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping can be signed by only one of them.
In administration of the ACP likewise The administration of conjugal
belongs to the husband and wife.
property belongs to the husband and
wife jointly. However, administration
does not require that husband and
wife always act together.
Josol
Dino
Laydia
Mendoza
Pagayatan
101
Aggabao vs. Parulan, G.R. No. 165803,
Sept. 1, 2010
102
Uy vs. CA, 346 SCRA 246
Bersamin, J.
[Same as CPG] In ACP, provisions of
co-ownership shall apply to matters
not provided under the FC. In
relation to administration and
enjoyment, it shall belong to both
spouses jointly, and in case of
disagreement, the husband’s decision
shall prevail, subject to the wife’s
recourse to a judicial remedy, as
provided under Art. 96 of the FC.
Art. 124 of the FC provides that the
administration and enjoyment of the
CPG shall belong to both spouses
jointly. In case of disagreement, the
husband’s decision shall prevail,
subject to the wife’s recourse to a
judicial remedy.
In this case, Dionisio (husband) failed
to prove that the SPA held by Atty.
Parulan included the authority for
administration. The Court held that
the SPA, being a special agency, was
limited to the sale of the property and
did not extend to the power to
administer the property. For there to
be a valid sale, there must be proof of
court authority or written consent
from the other spouse.
The principle in CPG is the same The provision under Art. 124 of the
Family Code granting a spouse the
as ACP. Under Art. 96, In the
sole power of administration in case
event that one spouse is
incapacitated or otherwise unable of incapacity or inability of the other
spouse to participate in the
to participate in the administration
administration of conjugal properties,
of the common properties, the
does not apply in cases when a
other spouse may assume sole
spouse is incompetent to participate
powers of administration. The
in the administration of the conjugal
word "incapacity" is treated the
property or is unable to give consent.
The term "incapacity" means the
same.
separation, abandonment, or absence
of a spouse.
Pardo, J.
Palabrica
Pandy
Disposition and encumbrance
103
104
Disposition and
encumbrance
Jader-Manalo v Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978,
January 23, 2002
Guiang vs CA, 291 SCRA 372
Kapunan, J.
Panganiban, J.
FC 96-98
FC 124-125
Even if the other spouse actively
participated in negotiating for the sale
of the property, that other spouse's
written consent to the sale is required
by law for its validity. Mere awareness
of a transaction is not consent. Thus,
the contract will be void even if one
spouse participated in the negotiation
but thereafter refused to sign the
contracts of sale. (Same as provided
under Art. 96 of the Family Code)
Under ACP, the sale of a conjugal
property requires the consent of both
the husband and the wife. The
absence of the consent of one
renders the sale null, and void, while
the vitiation thereof makes it merely
voidable. Only in the latter case can
ratification cure the defect.
Even if the other spouse actively
participated in negotiating for the sale
of the property, that other spouse's
written consent to the sale is required
by law for its validity. Mere awareness
of a transaction is not consent. Thus,
the contract will be void even if one
spouse participated in the negotiation
but thereafter refused to sign the
contracts of sale. (Same as provided
under Art. 124 of the Family Code)
Amicable settlement entered cannot
be considered as a ratification as void
contracts cannot be ratified. Neither
can it be considered a continuing
offer as it is not mentioned in the
settlement and that by its tenor was
to the effect that respondents would
vacate the property.
De Ocampo
Paras
105
Roxas v. CA 198 SCRA 541 [1991]
Paras, J.
106
Alinas vs Alinas, GR No. 158040, April 14,
2008
Austria-Martinez, J.
107
Siochi v Gozon, G.R. No. 169900, March
18, 2010
Carpio, J.
108
Aggabao vs. Parulan, G.R. No. 165803,
Sept. 1, 2010
Bersamin, J.
Absence of consent of one spouse in
relation to the transaction involving
conjugal property renders the
transaction void.
The joinder of the wife is necessary
in cases where there is a lease a
conjugal property for a period of
more than one year. The remedy of
the wife is to annul the contract
provided that it is within 10 years
from the transaction and it is during
the marriage.
In ACP, ARTICLE 207. Neither
Art. 124 of the FC states that, absent
spouse may alienate or encumber any any authority given by the court or
common property without the
the other spouse. the disposition or
consent of the other. In case of
encumbrance of the property without
unjustifiable refusal by the other
the consent of the other shall be void.
spouse, the courts may grant the
necessary consent.
Article 63(2) provides that forfeiture As a consequence of the legal
of the guilty spouse of their net share separation decree, the conjugal
of the profit after the dissolution of partnership is terminated and settled,
the property regime as an effect of a and the guilty spouse loses any
decree of legal separation applies
entitlement to a portion of the net
both to ACP and CPG.
profits obtained from the conjugal
partnership. Specifically, only the
husband's share, as the offending
spouse, in the net profits is forfeited
in favor of the recipient (donee).
According to Article 102(4) of the
Family Code, the computation of the
net profits subject to forfeiture under
Article 43, No. (2), and 63, No. (2), is
based on the increase in the value of
the community property between its
market value at the time of marriage
celebration and its market value at the
time of dissolution. It is crucial to
note that what is forfeited to the
donee is not Alfredo's share in the
conjugal partnership property but
solely the net profits derived from the
conjugal partnership property.
In ACP, the alienation and disposition Art. 124 of the Family Code applies
of the community properties shall be in the sales and disposition of
governed by Arts. 96-98 of the FC.
conjugal properties that were made
after the effectivity of the same, even
The powers of administration do not if the marriage was celebrated prior
include the powers of disposition or to the effectivity of the Family Code.
encumbrance without court authority In this case, the sale was made on
or written consent of the other
March 18, 1991 or after August 3,
spouse. Absence of the court
1988 (the effectivity of the FC)
authority and written consent renders
the disposition or encumbrance as
In this case, the sale was void, due to
void.
the absence of a court authority or
written consent of the other spouse.
Roxas
Sandoval
Sison
Palabrica
109
Ko v Aramburo, G. R. No. 190995, August
9, 2017
Tijam, J.
110
Spouses Cueno v. Spouses Bautista, , G.R.
No. 246445, March 02, 2021
Caguioa, J.
111
Esteban Vs. Campano, G.R. No. 235364,
April 26, 2021
Carandang, J.
112
Tuazon vs. Fuentes, G.R. No. 241699,
August 04, 2021
Inting, J.
Under the Family Code, the sale of
the husband without the written
consent of the wife shall be void
under Art. 96 (2).
The separation from bed and board
between husband and wife is an
indication that the marital
relationship between them has gone
stale and renders the alleged consent
given to encumber the conjugal assets
suspicious. However, since the
circumstances occurred before the
effectivity of the Family Code, the
sale of the husband without the
consent of the wife renders the sale
merely voidable.
Art 173 remedy is not applicable in
Under CPG, the court held that
ACP.
Aguilar-Reyes case is to be followed
Articles 96 46 and 124 47 of the
that sale of property without the
Family Code unequivocally state that consent of wife is voidable under Art
a disposition of community or
166 and the wife may initiate the
conjugal property without the
annulment of the sale within 10 yrs
consent of the other spouse is void
from the transaction during the
but shall constitute a continuing offer marriage under Art 173.
on the part of the consenting spouse
and the third person, and may be
perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the
offer is withdrawn by either or both
offerors.
Under ACP, the transfer of
Under CPG, the rule on the transfer
community property without the
of conjugal property without the
authority of the court or written
consent of the other spouse is the
consent of the other spouse is VOID. same as ACP. However, the court in
However, the transaction will be
this case made a distinction between
construed as a continuing offer on
transfers made under the Family
the part of the consenting spouse and Code and those made under the Civil
the third person and may be
Code.
perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or Under the Family Code, the transfer
authorization by the court before the of conjugal property without the
offer is withdrawn by either or both authority of the court or written
offerors.
consent of the other spouse is VOID;
while under the Civil Code, the
transfer of conjugal property without
the wife's consent is merely
VOIDABLE. An action for
annulment must be brought by the
wife, during the marriage and within
10 years from the questioned
transaction.
Same rule applies for both ACP and Same rule applies for both ACP and
CPG: The disposition of common
CPG: The disposition of common
property by the husband as an
property by the husband as an
administrator in appropriate cases
administrator in appropriate cases
requires the written consent of the
requires the written consent of the
wife, otherwise, the disposition is
wife, otherwise, the disposition is
void. Knowledge or being merely
void. Knowledge or being merely
aware of a transaction is not consent. aware of a transaction is not consent.
Young
Paras
Dino
Laydia
113
Heirs of Patrocinio N. Dayrit, G.R. No.
205743. October 6, 2021
114
Carandang, J.
Alexander vs Spouses Escalona, G.R. No.
256141. July 19, 2022 (en banc)
Lopez, M.V., J.
Cabreza v Cabreza, GR 171260,
September 11, 2009
Del Castillo, J.
Under the ACP regime, the
encumbrance and dispositiion of a
community property is void if done
without the consent of the other
spouse or authority of the court.
In ACP, ARTICLE 207 of the FC
states that, neither spouse may
alienate or encumber any common
property without the consent of the
other. In case of unjustifiable refusal
by the other spouse, the courts may
grant the necessary consent.
Under CPG, transfer of conjugal
property entered into without a wife's
consent is voidable, not void. The
action for the annulment of a
contract involving conjugal real
property entered into by a husband
without the wife's consent must be
brought: (1) by the wife; (2) during
the marriage; and (3) within ten years
from the questioned transaction.
In this case, the husband died the
same year, terminating the marriage.
Not having annulled, the Deed of
Sale executed by the husband with
the wife's consent is valid and
binding.
Any disposition or encumbrance of a
conjugal property by one spouse
must be consented to by the other;
otherwise, it is void.
Yu
Sandoval
Effect of separation de facto/ Effect of abandonment/ Dissolution
115
Effect of separation de
facto/ Effect of
abandonment/
Dissolution
FC 100; 101; cf. FC 239, FC 101, FC
72 – damages, rescission/nullity of a
contract, FC 99, 102, 103, 104. 147,
148
FC 127, FC 128 cf. FC 239, FC 128 cf. Art. 102 (6) of the Family Code
FC 101, FC 126, 129, 130, 147, 148
considers situations wherein the
community regime has more than
one property. When there is more
than one property in the ACP, the law
provides that the properties should
be liquidated and divided , and the
conjugal dwelling shall be given to
the spouse with whom the majority
of the common children choose to
remain.
However, the family home may be
sold after dissolution of the conjugal
partnership if there is a judicial order,
and the family home is the only
property of the ACP or CPG.
116
Heirs of Go v Servacio, GR 157537, Sept.
7, 2011
Bersamin, J.
117
Ugalde v Ysasi, GR 130623, February 29,
2008
Carpio, J.
118
Dino v Dino, GR 178044, January 19, 2011
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Art. 129 (9) of the Family Code
considers situations wherein the
conjugal partnership has more than
one property. When there is more
than one property in the CPG, the
law provides that the properties
should be liquidated and divided ,
and the conjugal dwelling shall be
given to the spouse with whom the
majority of the common children
choose to remain.
De Ocampo
However, the family home may be
sold after dissolution of the conjugal
partnership if there is a judicial order,
and the family home is the only
property of the ACP or CPG.
The alienation made by the surviving spouse of a portion of the community
property, without the prior liquidation mandated by Art. 130 of the Family
Code, is not wholly void ab initio, and shall be valid only to the extent of
what will be allotted, in the final partition, to the vendor.
The judicial separation of property
Same rule for ACP. The judicial
results in the termination of CPG.
separation of property results in
The finality of the trial court's order
the termination of ACP.
approving the parties' separation of
property resulted in the termination
of the CPG.
A marriage declared void under Art. 36 of the Family Code is governed by
the rules on liquidation on co-ownership under Art. 147. The Court does
not find it necessary to liquidate the properties in the same proceeding for
the declaration of nullity of marriage.
Mendoza
Dino
Pandy
119
Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. 183622, July 4,
2012
Perez, J.
Even in an ACP, the effect of having
no separate properties before
marriage and the existence of a guilty
party leaves such party no properties
if forfeited in favor of the common
children.
Here, the properties listed were
considered part of the conjugal
partnership. As a result, whatever
remains in the conjugal partnership
should have been divided equally
between the spouses and/or their
respective heirs. However, since
petitioner was found to be a guilty
party, his share of the net profits is
relinquished in favor of their
common children, pursuant to Article
63(2) of the FC.
No portion will be given back to the
guilty party in the CPG, as a
consequence of both parties having
no separate properties before the
marriage.
Sison
120
Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492,
October 20, 2014
Peralta, J.
Same
The rules which are set up to govern the
liquidation of either the absolute
community or the conjugal partnership
of gains, the property regimes recognized
for valid and voidable marriages, are
irrelevant to the liquidation of the
co-ownership that exists between
common-law spouses of void marriages.
Under 147, the presumption is
co-ownership unless proven otherwise.
Eulogio
121
Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289,
August 20, 2014
Perez, J.
Same.
Hernando
122
Domingo vs. Molina, G.R. No. 200274,
April 20, 2016
Brion, J.
Separation in fact for one year is a
ground to grant judicial separation of
property. This case is replete with
evidence that the spouses were
indeed separated for one year, and
their reconciliation is highly
improbable. The petition for judicial
separation of property should
therefore be granted. The granting
of the same automatically dissolves
the absolute community of property
regime, and liquidation follows
thereafter.
The dissolution of the ACP by reason
of the death of a spouse results in a
co-ownership by the surviving heirs
with respect to the share of the
deceased spouse until final liquidation
and partition.
When the conjugal partnership is
dissolved by reason of the death of a
spouse, an implied co-ownership
ensues among the surviving heirs
with respect to the share of the
deceased spouse until final liquidation
and partition.
Pagayatan
123
Uy v Estate of Fernandez, G.R. No.
200612, April 5, 2017
Reyes, J.
[Same treatment with CPG] Under
Art. 103 of the FC, upon the
termination of the marriage by death,
the community propety shall be
liquidated in the same proceeding for
the settlement of the estate of the
deceased, or in the absence, by the
surviving spouse within one year
from the death of the deceased
spouse. Absent liquidation, any
disposition or encumbrance of the
community property involved in the
terminated marriage is void.
124
Jimenez vs. Dy, G.R. No. 218731, February
13, 2019
J.C. Reyes, Jr.
Same treatment for ACP. Upon the
termination of the marriage by death,
the community property shall be
liquidated in the same proceeding for
the settlement of the estate of the
deceased.
125
Paterno v Paterno, G.R. 213687, Jan. 8,
2020
126
Heirs of Caburnay, v. Heirs of Sison, G.R.
No. 230934, December 02, 2020
Caguioa, J.
127
Perez, Jr. vs. Perez-Senerpida, G.R. No.
233365, March 24, 2021
Caguioa, J.
J.C. Reyes, Jr., J.
Under the CPG, the spouses are
co-owners of all the properties of the
conjugal partnership. Upon the death
of one spouse and dissolution of the
CPG, the surviving spouse has an
actual and vested one-half undivided
share of the properties, which is not
determinate property until liquidation
and partition. The other half of the
deceased spouse’s share shall have an
implied ordinary co-ownership
among the surviving spouse and the
other heirs (such as the children).
Further, any disposition or sale made
by the surviving spouse, despite the
absence of liquidation of the CPG, is
not necessarily void because the right
as a co-owner would be transferred
to the buyer for the undivided share.
The subject property is conjugal in
nature being registered under the
names of spouses Sixto and Marcosa.
Upon the death of Marcosa, the
conjugal nature of the property was
dissolved and the interest of Sixto,
one-half share on the property (as
spouse) + one-fourth (share as
surviving spouse) goes to him.
Roberta, their child, is entitled to the
other one-fourth of the property.
After the death of Marcosa, the
subject property became co-owned
by Sixto and Roberta. Thus, Sixto can
only validly sell 3/4 of the property
(his aliquot share).
Article 147 would still apply even if
the parties were married before the
Family Code took effect by express
provision of the Family Code on its
retroactive effect for as long as it
does not prejudice or impair vested
or acquired rights in accordance with
the Civil Code or other laws.
The legal effect of a confirmation of
a void ab initio marriageis that it is
retroactive to the time when the
marriage ceremony transpired, as if
no marriage took place. This means
that during the ten-year cohabitation
of the spouses, they lived together
merely as common-law spouses.
Thus, their property regime is
governed by Article 147.
The contract to sell entered into by the husband of his conjugal property
with his deceased wife is not entirely void for failure to effect liquidation. In
instances where the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse
do not liquidate the conjugal properties, and kept undivided, a co-ownership
is deemed established for the management, control, and enjoyment of the
common property and the properties are divided according to the law on
co-ownership.
The dissolution of the ACP under
The dissolution of the CPG under
Art. 36 puts into effect Art. 147 of
Art. 36 puts into effect Art. 147 of
the FC. The donation of any property the FC. Under Art. 147, the donation
(acquired during the cohabitation) by of any property (acquired during the
one party without the consent of the cohabitation) by one party without
other is void.
the consent of the other is void.
Palabrica
Josol
Laydia
Mendoza
Pagayatan
#
Subject Matter
Case Title
Ponente
Relevant law(s) to the case
Doctrine
Person Assigned
Separation of Property
128
Regime of separation of
property
Ugalde v Ysasi, GR 130623, February 29,
2008
Carpio J.
129
Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289,
August 20, 2014
Perez, J.
130
Estrella Abid-Babano vs. Executive
Secretary G.R. No. 201176, August 28,
2019 [en banc]
Bersamin, J.
(a) In the marriage settlements, FC 143-146
(b) When mandatory, FC 103 & FC 130
(c) Reconciliation in legal separation, FC 66(2)
(d) Judicial separation of property, 134 - 146
The approval of a compromise agreement on the parties' separation of
property, resulted in the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains
between the spouses.
Dino
The spouses were found to have actually been separated for at least one year,
thus, the petition for judicial separation of the absolute community property
should be granted. The granting of the same automatically dissolves the
absolute community of property regime, and liquidation follows thereafter.
Article 38 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws specifically defines their
regime of property relations as Muslims to be one of complete separation of
property.
Under the Civil Code, which also has suppletory application to the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws, the consequence of the property regime of complete
separation is found in Article 214 of the Civil Code and the same effect is in
the Family Code under Article 145
Hernando
The rule on special co-ownership (Art. 147) shall govern the liquidation of
common property of a void marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
In case of failure to secure a JDNOM before contracting a 2nd marriage, the
property regime of the 2nd marriage shall be governed by the provisions of
Articles 147 and 148 of the FC on the "Property Regime of Unions without
Marriage" and shall be divided according to their respective contributions.
A spouse's active contribution to the business gives rise to the presumption
that properties acquired during the period of cohabitation has been acquired
through joint efforts, work or industry of both parties. As a result, it will be
considered as co-owned in equal shares.
Further, if one party did not directly participate in acquiring a property, but
instead contributed to the family's care and household management, it is still
deemed a joint contribution to the acquisition of that property.
Art. 147 of the Family Code applies to a union between parties who are
legally capacitated and are not barred by any impediment to marry but
whose marriage is still void. In these cases, liquidation of the properties is
not required before the nullity decree may be issued.
Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the union of parties who are legally
capacitated and not barred by any
impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless
declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code, as in this case.
Roxas
Paras
Property Regimes of Unions without Marriage
131
Property Regimes of
Valdes v. QC RTC, G.R. No. 122749, July
Unions without Marriage 31, 1996
132
Carino vs. Carino, GR 132539, February 3,
2001
133
Gonzales vs Gonzales, 478 SCRA 327
134
Diño v Diño, GR 178004, January 19, 2011
135
Salas, Jr., v Aguila, G.R. No. 202370, SEP
23 2013
136
Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492,
October 20, 2014
Vitug, J.
Ynares-Santiago, J.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Carpio, J.
Peralta,J.
Unions under FC 147, 4, 35, 36, 53
Under this property regime, property acquired during the marriage is prima
facie presumed to have been obtained through the couple's joint efforts and
governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the present case, Salas did not
rebut this presumption. Accordingly, the partition of the Discovered
Properties as ordered by the RTC and the CA should be sustained, but on
the basis of co-ownership and not on the regime of conjugal partnership of
gains.
Under Article 147, the man and the woman: (1) must be capacitated to
marry each other; (2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife;
and (3) their union is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is
void. Here, all these elements are present. The term "capacitated" inthe first
paragraph of the provision pertains to the legal capacity of a party to
contract marriage.
Sandoval
Sison
Pandy
Young
Eulogio
137
People v XXX, GR 240441, Dec. 4, 2019
Reyes, A., Jr., J
138
Paterno v Paterno, G.R. 213687, Jan. 8,
2020
J.C. Reyes, Jr., J.
139
Perez v Senerpida, G.R. No. 233365,
March 24, 2021
140
Belcodero v. CA 227 SCRA 303
141
Agapay vs Agapay, 276 SCRA 340
142
Tumlos vs. Sps. Fernandez, G.R. No.
137650, Apr 12, 2000
143
Atienza vs.de Castro,G.R. No. 1695698,
Nov. 29, 2006
Garcia, J.
144
Signey v SSS, GR No. 173582, Jan. 28,
2008
Tinga, J.
145
Borromeo vs Descallar, GR No. 159310,
Feb. 24, 2009
Common-law spouse and step-parent have different legal meanings which
cannot be used interchangeably. The fact that a person is proved to be the
common-law spouse of another, does not mean that the former is already
the stepfather of the latter's child. Both must be sufficiently proved, and
proof of one does not prove the other.
Article 147 of the Family Code only applies to properties acquired by the
parties while they lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife. For
as long as the property had been purchased, whether on installment,
financing or other mode of payment, during the period of cohabitation, the
disputable presumption that they have been obtained by the parties' joint
efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares, shall
arise. However, in this case, the parties' equal share shall only pertain to the
paid portion before their separation, for in this peculiar kind of
co-ownership, the partnership is considered terminated upon the parties'
separation or desistance to continue said relations.
In the special co-ownership between parties living together as husband and
wife, Article 147 establishes that as long as the cohabitation lasts and the
co-ownership exists, no disposition inter vivos of such undivided share can
be validly made by one party without the consent of the other. This
prohibition against a spouse to donate any absolute community property or
conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other spouse
equally applies to common-law relations or cohabitations of a man and a
woman without a valid marriage or under a void marriage.
Caguioa, J.
Vitug, J.
Romero, J.
Panganiban,J.
Puno, C.J.
Unions under FC 148, 35, 37, 38
Article 148 of the NCC cannot apply if vested rights of the legal heirs will be
impaired.
The rules of co-ownership will be applicable if there is proof of actual
contribution in purchasing a property during cohabitation between a married
man and his concubine. If actual contribution is not proved, there will be no
co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares. The concubine could not
have had the means to contribute towards the purchase of a riceland and
house and lot because she was only 20 years old at that time and living with a
64-year-old man. Hence, the property should revert to the CPG of the man
and his lawful wife.
Efforts in the care and maintrnance of the family and household are
regarded as contribution to the common property by one who doesnt earn a
salary or income under Article 147, however this condition is not included in
148. If the contribution of the party is not proved, there will be no
co-ownership and no presumtion of equal shares.
Even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of property occurred before the
effectivity of the Family Code, the regime of limited co-ownership of
property shall govern parties not legally capacitated to marry each other, but
who are nonetheless living together as husband and wife. In such a case,
proof of actual contribution is required for a co-ownership to result.
According to RA 8282 (SSS Law), a surviving spouse claiming death benefits
as a dependent must be the legal spouse. Petitioner's marriage with the
deceased is null and void since the deceased had a prior existing marriage.
Thus, petitioner has no right to claim death benefits.
In property relations under Article 148, it is necessary for each of the
partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of
property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions
of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply.
Yu
Laydia
De Ocampo
Sandoval
Dino
Eulogio
Hernando
Josol
Laydia
146
Heirs of Maramag vs De Guzman, GR
181132, June 5, 2009
147
Lacbayan v Samoy, GR 165427, March 21,
2011
148
Go- Bangayan v Bangayan, G.R. No.
201061, July 3, 2013
Nachura, J.
Villarama, Jr.
Carpio J.
Illegitimate children, borne out of a union without marriage, can be
beneficiaries in an insurance contract. There is no prescription in naming as
beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships by the insured. The share of
the paramour in the insurance proceeds, whether forfeited by the court due
to the prohibition on donations under Art. 739 of the Civil Code or by the
insurer themselves, must be awarded to the illegitimate children. Only in
cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the
designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to receive the proceeds, that the
insurance policy will be redounded to the benefit of the estate of the insured.
Until the issue of co-ownership is definitely resolved, a partition of
properties cannot be given effect.
Property acquired during cohabitation can only be considered common
property if: (1) there is evidence showing that the properties were acquired
by the parties during their cohabitation; and (2) there is evidence that the
properties were acquired through the parties' actual joint contribution of
money, property, or industry. These two conditions must concur.
Art. 148 of the FC (regime of limited co-ownership) applies to cohabitation
existing without the benefit of marriage wherein one of the parties is validly
married to another and provides that actual joint contribution must be
proven to establish co-ownership over the properties alleged to have been
acquired during the cohabitation.
Mendoza
Pagayatan
Palabrica
In this case, the Court ruled that the words “married to” beside the name of
a spouse are merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner and
do not prove co-ownership. Without proof of actual contribution from
either or both spouses, there can be no co-ownership under Art. 148 of the
FC.
149
Lavadia vs. Heirs of Luna, G.R. No.
171914, July 23, 2014
Bersamin, J.
150
Tambuyat v. Tambuyat, G.R. No. 202805,
March 23, 2015
Del Castillo, J.
151
Fullido v Grilli, G.R. No. 215014,
February 29, 2016
152
Canada v Baclot, G.R. No. 221874, July 07,
2020
Mendoza, J.
J. Reyes, JR., J.
Properties acquired during a bigamous marriage are governed by rules on
co-ownership under Art. 144 of the Civil Code. The person who alleges
co-ownership has the burden of proof and he or she must establish it by
proof of actual contributions in the acquisition of property.
Both marriages were subsisting at the time of the acquisition of the subject
property and issuance of the certificate of title thereto. Thus, it cannot be
said that Adriano and Banguis have a common-law relationship at all.
Documentary evidence among others, the parties' respective marriage
contracts, which, together with marriage certificates, are considered the
primary evidence of a marital union
A leaase contracted by a Filipino with a foreign common law husband is
void where the contract states that it is shall last for 50 years and renewable
for another 50 years as this would limit Fullido's exercise of ownership since
she wouldn't be able to dispose the same without any consent from Grilli.
Properties jointy acquired by parties cohabiting under 148 shall be divided
relative to their actual contribution which requires proof. Absent any proof
of such, their contributions shall be deemed equal.
Pandy
Paras
Roxas
Sandoval