property relations of the spouses n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Property relations of the spouses PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Property relations of the spouses

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 150

Property relations of the spouses - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 136 Views
  • Uploaded on

Property relations of the spouses. Outline. Marriage settlements Donations propter nuptias Absolute Community of Property Conjugal Partnership of Gains Regime of Separation of Property Judicial Separation of Property Property Regime of Unions without Marriage. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Property relations of the spouses' - taber


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
outline
Outline
  • Marriage settlements
  • Donations propter nuptias
  • Absolute Community of Property
  • Conjugal Partnership of Gains
  • Regime of Separation of Property
  • Judicial Separation of Property
  • Property Regime of Unions without Marriage
marriage settlements
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS
  • Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern. (119a)
  • Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136. (121)
form and registration
Form and registration
  • Art. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in writing, signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of the marriage. They shall not prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties. (122a)
slide5

Art. 81. Everything stipulated in the settlements or contracts referred to in the preceding articles in consideration of a future marriage, including donations between the prospective spouses made therein, shall be rendered void if the marriage does not take place. However, stipulations that do not depend upon the celebration of the marriages shall be valid. (125a)

parties to a marriage settlement
Parties to a marriage settlement
  • Art. 78. A minor who according to law may contract marriage may also execute his or her marriage settlements, but they shall be valid only if the persons designated in Article 14 to give consent to the marriage are made parties to the agreement, subject to the provisions of Title IX of this Code. (120a)
  • Art. 79. For the validity of any marriage settlement executed by a person upon whom a sentence of civil interdiction has been pronounced or who is subject to any other disability, it shall be indispensable for the guardian appointed by a competent court to be made a party thereto. (123a)
which law governs property relations
Which law governs property relations
  • Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property relations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage and their residence.
  • This rule shall not apply:
  • (1) Where both spouses are aliens;
  • (2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated in the Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located; and
  • (3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different formalities for its extrinsic validity. (124a)
donation propter nuptias
Donation propter nuptias
  • SOLIS v. BARROSO (1928) – in donations propter nuptias, the marriage is really a consideration but not in the sense of being necessary to give birth to the obligation. This may clearly inferred from article 1333, which makes the fact that the marriage did not take place a cause for the revocation of such donations, thus taking it for granted that there may be a valid donation propter nuptias, even without marriage, since that which has not existed cannot be revoked.
slide9

HEIRS OF CESARIO VELASQUEZ v. CA (2000) – the deed of donation propter nuptias can be revoked by the non-performance of the marriage and the other causes mentioned in Art. 86 of the FC. The alleged reason for the repudiation (that the spouses did not intend to give away all their properties since they have several nephews & nieces) is not one of the grounds for revocation.

form of donations
FORM OF DONATIONS
  • VALENCIA v. LOQUIAO (2003) – Applying Art. 1330 of the Old Civil Code, it does not matter whether or not the donees had accepted the donation. The validity of the donation is unaffected in either case.
  • HEIRS OF MARCELINO DORONIO v. HEIRS OF FORTUNATO DORONIO (2007) – Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a public instrument in which the property donated must be specifically described. In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias did not become valid. Neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public instrument.
who may be donors
WHO MAY BE DONORS
  • Art. 83. These donations are governed by the rules on ordinary donations established in Title III of Book III of the Civil Code, insofar as they are not modified by the following articles. (127a)

>would be spouses to each other

> parents to one or both of the spouses

> third persons to either or both of the spouses

what may be donated
WHAT MAY BE DONATED

Art. 84. If the future spouses agree upon a regime other than the absolute community of property, they cannot donate to each other in their marriage settlements more than one-fifth of their present property. Any excess shall be considered void.

Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of wills. (130a)

Art. 85. Donations by reason of marriage of property subject to encumbrances shall be valid. In case of foreclosure of the encumbrance and the property is sold for less than the total amount of the obligation secured, the donee shall not be liable for the deficiency. If the property is sold for more than the total amount of said obligation, the donee shall be entitled to the excess. (131a)

slide13

MATEO v. LAGUA (1969) – donations propter nuptias are without onerous consideration, the marriage being merely the occasion or motive for the donation, not its cause. Being liberalities, they remain subject to reduction for inofficiousness upon the donor’s death, if they should infringe the legitime of the forced heir.

void donations by the spouses
VOID DONATIONS BY THE SPOUSES
  • Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. (133a)
slide15

CHING v. GOYANKO (2006) - donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited. And this is so because if transfers or conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other, as well as to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family law. The prohibitions apply to a couple living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage, otherwise, "the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union.”

  • As the conveyance in question was made by Goyangko in favor of his common- law-wife-herein petitioner, it was null and void.
donations in common law marriages
Donations in common law marriages
  • MATABUENA v. CERVANTES (1971) – donation made to common law wife is also prohibited. “For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irregular connection for 30 years bespeaks greater influence of one party over the other, so that the danger that the law seeks to avoid is correspondingly increased.”
  • SUMBAD v. CA (1999) – evidence on record does not show whether the donor was married to the donee nor if they were still maintaining common-law relations. No evidence on record that donor and donee maintained a common-law relationship until April 1974 when the donation was made.
slide17

ARCABA v. Vda. De BATOCAEL (2001) – donor and donee lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by donor to donee is void under Art. 87.

revocation
REVOCATION
  • Art. 81. Everything stipulated in the settlements or contracts referred to in the preceding articles in consideration of a future marriage, including donations between the prospective spouses made therein, shall be rendered void if the marriage does not take place. However, stipulations that do not depend upon the celebration of the marriages shall be valid. (125a)
  • Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. (n)
absolute community of property
ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY
  • Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern. (119a)
  • Art. 103 (3). Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)
slide20

Art. 130 (3). Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)

  • Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom. (160)
commencement
COMMENCEMENT
  • Art. 88. The absolute community of property between spouses shall commence at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated. Any stipulation, express or implied, for the commencement of the community regime at any other time shall be void. (145a)
waiver during marriage
WAIVER DURING MARRIAGE

Art. 89. No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolute community of property during the marriage can be made except in case of judicial separation of property.

waiver after marriage
WAIVER AFTER MARRIAGE

Art. 89 (2) When the waiver takes place upon a judicial separation of property, or after the marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall be recorded as provided in Article 77. The creditors of the spouse who made such waiver may petition the court to rescind the waiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. (146a)

suppletory rules
SUPPLETORY RULES

Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership shall apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters not provided for in this Chapter. (n)

what constitutes acp
WHAT CONSTITUTES ACP

Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, 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. (197a)

  • All property at time of marriage;
  • Property acquired subsequently;
  • Winnings from gamblings (Art. 95)
  • Presumption of ACP (Art. 93)
slide27

MULLER v. MULLER (2006) – Foreigner husband was not allowed to seek reimbursement on the ground of equity for the purchase of the house and lot. He willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition. To allow reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a property which he is not allowed to own.

slide28

PACIFIC FINANCE v. EIJI YANAGISAWA (2012) – Evelyn, the Filipina wife of Eiji, committed that she will not sell the property while the case is pending. This was annotated in the title. As such, if is akin to an injunction order that must be obeyed irrespective of the ultimate validity of the order.

what is excluded from acp
WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM ACP
  • Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the community property:
  • (1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;
  • (2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;
  • (3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property. (201a)
slide30

Art. 142. The administration of all classes of exclusive property of either spouse may be transferred by the court to the other spouse:

  • (1) When one spouse becomes the guardian of the other;
  • (2) When one spouse is judicially declared an absentee;
  • (3) When one spouse is sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction; or
  • (4) When one spouse becomes a fugitive from justice or is in hiding as an accused in a criminal case.
  • If the other spouse is not qualified by reason of incompetence, conflict of interest, or any other just cause, the court shall appoint a suitable person to be the administrator. (n)
slide31

ABRENICA v. ABRENICA (2012) – Art. 92 (3) excludes from the community property the property acquired before the marriage of spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage and the fruits and the income if any of that property. The two motor vehicles purchased in 1992 and 1997 does not belong to the second marriage which was celebrated in May 1998.

charges upon acp
CHARGES UPON ACP
  • Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:
  • (1) The support of the spouses, their common children, and legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support;
  • (2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the community, or by both spouses, or by one spouse with the consent of the other;
  • (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been benefited;
  • (4) All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major or minor repairs, upon the community property;
  • (5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during marriage upon the separate property of either spouse used by the family;
slide33

(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional or vocational course, or other activity for self-improvement;

  • (7) Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the family;
  • (8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement;
slide34

(9) Antenuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling under paragraph (7) of this Article, the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, and liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of a 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 community; and

  • (10) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless.
  • If the community property is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, except those falling under paragraph (9), the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties. (161a, 162a, 163a, 202a-205a)
slide35

LUZON SURETY v. DE GARCIA (1969) - the only obligations incurred by the husband that are chargeable against the conjugal property are those incurred in the legitimate pursuit of his career, profession or business with the honest belief that he is doing right for the benefit of the family. In acting as guarantor or surety for another in an indemnity agreement, the husband did not act for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. No proof that he even received compensation which may have redounded for the benefit the conjugal partnership.

slide36

GELANO v. CA (1981) –The obligation contracted by petitioner-husband Carlos Gelano redounded to the benefit of the family, the conjugal property is liable for his debt pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 1408, Civil Code of 1889 which provision incidentally can still be found in paragraph 1, Article 161 of the New Civil Code.

slide37

G-TRACTORS v. CA (1985) – the husband is administrator of the CP and as long as he believes he is doing right to his family, he should not be made to suffer and answer alone. Since he incurred debts for renting the tractors and heavy equipments of G-Tractor for use in his mahogany business, the CP must equally bear the indebtedness and losses unless he deliberately acted to the prejudice of his family.

a family expenses
(a) Family Expenses
  • Art. 100. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of absolute community except that:
  • (3) In the absence of sufficient community property, the separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon proper petition in a summary proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or encumber any specific separate property of the other spouse and use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter's share. (178a)
slide39

Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:

(1) The support of the spouses, their common children, and legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support;

(4) All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major or minor repairs, upon the community property;

(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during marriage upon the separate property of either spouse used by the family;

slide40

FRANCISCO v. GONZALES (2008) – During the declaration of nullity of marriage proceedings, the couple executed a compromise agreement stating among others that their children, Cleodia and Ceamanthashall own the house and lot in Ayala Alabang.

The husband and wife already waived their title to and ownership of the house and lot, the property should not have been levied and sold at execution sale, for lack of legal basis.

debts of spouses
Debts of Spouses

Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:

(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the community, or by both spouses, or by one spouse with the consent of the other;

(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been benefited;

subsidiary liabilities
Subsidiary Liabilities

Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:

(9) Antenuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling under paragraph (7) of this Article, the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, and liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of a 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 community; and

gaming loses
GAMING LOSES
  • Art. 95. Whatever may be lost during the marriage in any game of chance, betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind of gambling, whether permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser and shall not be charged to the community but any winnings therefrom shall form part of the community property. (164a)
ownership
OWNERSHIP

Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership shall apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters not provided for in this Chapter. (n)

administration enjoyment
ADMINISTRATION & ENJOYMENT

Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall 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. (206a)

a joint administration
(a) Joint Administration
  • MR. & MRS. DAR v. LEGASTO (2000) – “In the instant case, the Court of Appeals should have taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners were sued jointly, or as "Mr. and Mrs." over a property in which they have a common interest. Such being the case, the signing of one of them in the certification substantially complies with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping.”
b sole administration
(b) Sole Administration
  • (1) incapacity, Art. 96 (2) – without need for court order
  • (2) separation in fact, Art. 100 (3) – with need for court order
  • (3) abandonment, Art. 101 – with need for court order
  • (4) pendency of legal separation proceedings, Art. 61 – with need for court order
disposition encumbrance
Disposition & Encumbrance
  • Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
  • In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall 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. (206a)
slide49

Art. 97. Either spouse may dispose by will of his or her interest in the community property. (n)

  • Art. 98. Neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the community property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (n)
slide50

MATTHEWS v. TAYLOR (2009) – In an Agreement of Lease of a parcel of land entered into by a Filipino wife without the consent of her British husband, aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines.The wife is the sole owner, even if funds for the purchase came from the alien husband.

causes for dissolution
CAUSES FOR DISSOLUTION
  • Art. 99. The absolute community terminates:
  • (1) Upon the death of either spouse;
  • (2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
  • (3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
  • (4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Article 134 to 138. (175a)
a death
(a) Death

Art. 103. 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.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the community property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six months period, no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the community property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)

slide53

HEIRS OF GO v. SERVACIO (2011) - The disposition by sale of a portion of the conjugal property by the surviving spouse without the prior liquidation mandated by Article 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. At any rate, the requirement of prior liquidation does not prejudice vested rights.

b legal separation
(b) Legal Separation

Art. 63. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects:

(2) The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2);

c annulment declaration of nullity
(c) Annulment & Declaration of Nullity

Art. 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.

d judicial separation of property
(d) Judicial Separation of Property
  • Art. 134. In the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order. Such judicial separation of property may either be voluntary or for sufficient cause. (190a)
slide57

Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:

  • (1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction;
  • (2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared an absentee;
  • (3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been decreed by the court;
  • (4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or failed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as provided for in Article 101;
  • (5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements has abused that power; and
  • (6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
  • In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2) and (3), the presentation of the final judgment against the guilty or absent spouse shall be enough basis for the grant of the decree of judicial separation of property. (191a)
slide58

Art. 136. The spouses may jointly file a verified petition with the court for the voluntary dissolution of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains, and for the separation of their common properties.

All creditors of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership of gains, as well as the personal creditors of the spouse, shall be listed in the petition and notified of the filing thereof. The court shall take measures to protect the creditors and other persons with pecuniary interest. (191a)

slide59

Art. 137. Once the separation of property has been decreed, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains shall be liquidated in conformity with this Code.

During the pendency of the proceedings for separation of property, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall pay for the support of the spouses and their children. (192a)

Art. 138. After dissolution of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership, the provisions on complete separation of property shall apply. (191a)

slide60

UGALDE v. YSASI (2008) – “The finality of the 6 June 1961 Order in Civil Case No. 4791 approving the parties' separation of property resulted in the termination of the conjugal partnership of gains in accordance with Article 175 of the Family Code. Hence, when the trial court decided Special Proceedings No. 3330, the conjugal partnership between petitioner and respondent was already dissolved.”

“The Amicable Settlement had become final as between petitioner and respondent when it was approved by the CFI on 6 June 1961. The CFI's approval of the Compromise Agreement on 6 June 1961 resulted in the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner and respondent on even date.”

effects of dissolution
EFFECTS OF DISSOLUTION
  • Art. 102. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime, the following procedure shall apply:
  • (1) An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the absolute community and the exclusive properties of each spouse.
  • (2) The debts and obligations of the absolute community shall be paid out of its assets. In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 94.
  • (3) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered to each of them.
slide62

(4) The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net assets, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements, or unless there has been a voluntary waiver of such share provided in this Code. For purpose of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.

  • (5) The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon partition, in accordance with Article 51.
  • (6) Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In case there in no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best interests of said children. (n)
slide63

QUIAO v. QUIAO (2012) – to compute for net profits earned under ACP, follow these steps:

  • (1) determine the market value of the properties at the time of dissolution;
  • (2) subtract the debts and obligations of the ACP, you will get the net assets or net remainder of the properties of the ACP
  • (3) from the net assets deduct the market value of the properties at the time of marriage to get the net profits
for cause other than death
For cause other than death

Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects:

(2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse;

slide65

Art. 63. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects:

(2) The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2);

slide66

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

slide67

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a)

slide68

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in both faith. (144a)

marriages before the family code
Marriages before the Family Code
  • Art. 104. Whenever the liquidation of the community properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each community shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which community the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different communities in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)
slide70

DELIZO v. DELIZO (1976) - Considering these circumstances and since the capital of either marriage or the contribution of each spouse cannot be determined with mathematical precision, the total mass of these properties should be divided between the two conjugal partnerships in proportion to the duration of each partnership.

  • 1st CPG – 18/64 = 9/64 each to Rosa and Nicolas
  • 2nd CPG – 46/64 = 23/64 each to Rosa and Nicolas
  • Total share of Nicolas is 32/64 (divided into 13 equal parts)
slide72

JOSEPHINE BELCODERO v. COURT OF APPEALS (1993)

  • Property acquired by a husband living with his common law wife remains to be property of the conjugal partnership. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the CP unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or wife.
slide73

SPOUSES ESTONINA v. COURT OF APPEALS (1997)

  • Lot C is exclusive property of Santiago Garcia, having inherited the same from his mother. The lot is part of a larger tract of land divided between him and his sisters.
  • The presumption under Art. 160 of the Civil Code applies when there is proof that property was acquired during the marriage.
  • The only proof of the Spouses Estonina was that when the title was issued, Santiago was already married to Consuelo. Acquisition of title and registration are two different acts.
slide74

QUIAO v. QUIAO (2012)

  • The couple was married in 1977. Since at the time of the marriage the operative law was the Civil Code and since they did not agree on a marriage settlement, the property relations between husband and wife is the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains.
slide75

ESTRELLA ORPIANO v. SPOUSES TOMAS (2013)

  • In a collection case filed by deceased husband, the wife Estrella was not allowed to be dropped from the suit or to amend the suit to a complaint for annulment of sale.
  • She has a right as heir of her husband and as owner of half of the property to maintain a case for annulment of sale as a measure of protecting her share.
  • Instead of exhausting her remedies, she was forum shopping when she filed a case for annulment of sale while the collection case is pending.
when cpg commences a marriages under the fc
WHEN CPG COMMENCES (a) Marriages under the FC

Art. 107 states that Art. 88 and 89 of the Family Code applies to CPG

  • commences at the precise moment that marriage was celebrated;
  • cannot waive rights, shares and effects of the conjugal partnership during the marriage
b marriages before the fc
(b) Marriages before the FC

Art. 105 (2) -The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256. (n)

slide78

SPOUSES CASTRO v. MIAT (2003) – “Since Moises and Concordia were married before the effectivity of the Family Code, the provisions of the New Civil Code apply.

Article 153(1) of the New Civil Code provides as follows:

"The following are conjugal partnership property:

Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses; x x x.”

The records show that the Paco property was acquired by onerous title during the marriage out of the common fund. It is clearly conjugal property.

Petitioners also overlook Article 160 of the New Civil Code. It provides that "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." This article does not require proof that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. The presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.

suppletory rules1
SUPPLETORY RULES
  • Art. 108. The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules on the contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is expressly determined in this Chapter or by the spouses in their marriage settlements. (147a)
what is included
WHAT IS INCLUDED
  • Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance, and, upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall be divided equally between them, unless otherwise agreed in the marriage settlements. (142a)
slide81

Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. (160a)

slide82

Art. 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:

  • (1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;
  • (2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses;
  • (3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse;
slide83

(4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the finder or owner of the property where the treasure is found;

  • (5) Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;
  • (6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the number of each kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and
  • (7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or betting. However, losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. (153a, 154a, 155, 159)
slide84

Art. 118. Property bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal 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. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership. (n)

slide85

Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a period of time belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which may be collected during the marriage in partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property of the spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage on the principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership. (156a, 157a)

slide86

Art. 120. The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:

slide87

When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.

  • In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a)
slide88

TITAN v. DAVID (2010) – The SC was not persuaded by Titan’s arguments that the property was Martha’s exclusive property because Manuel failed to present before the RTC any proof of his income in 1970, hence he could not have had the financial capacity to contribute to the purchase of the property in 1970; and that Manuel admitted that it was Martha who concluded the original purchase of the property.

Manuel was not required to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. Rather, the presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear. Titan failed to overturn the presumption that the property, purchased during the spouses’ marriage, was part of the conjugal partnership.

In the absence of Manuel’s consent, the Deed of Sale is void.

slide89

IMANI v. METROBANK (2010) - The fact that the land was registered in the name of EvangelinaDazo-Imani married to SinaImani is no proof that the property was acquired during the spouses’ coverture. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. It is well settled that registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already existing.

Indubitably, petitioner utterly failed to substantiate her claim that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership.

slide90

DEWARA v. LAMELA (2011) – The property was acquired during the marriage and their marriage is governed by CPG having been married before the FC. The legal presumption of the conjugal nature of the property applies to the lot in question. The conjugal property is liable for the judgment against the husband for the physical injuries he caused Lamela.

what is excluded
WHAT IS EXCLUDED

Art. 109. The following shall be the exclusive property of each 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. (148a)

a brought as exclusive property
(a) Brought as exclusive property

LAPERAL v. KATIGBAK (1964) –The title to the disputed land is in the name of the wife. At the time of its purchase, the property was already of such substantial value as admittedly, the husband, by himself could not have afforded to buy, considering that singular source of income then was his P200.00/month salary from a Manila Bank. The purchase price was furnished by the wife’s mother so she could buy the property for herself. Furthermore, it was established during the trial that it was a practice of defendant's parents to so provide their children with money to purchase realties for themselves.”

slide93

FRANCISCO v. CA (1998) –The fact that the land was registered in the name of "Eusebio Francisco, married to Teresita Francisco", is no proof that the property was acquired during the spouses coverture. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. It is well settled that registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already existing. The phrase "married to" preceding "Teresita Francisco" is merely descriptive of the civil status of Eusebio Francisco.

In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the appellate court cannot be said to have been without valid basis in affirming the lower court's ruling that the properties in controversy belong exclusively to Eusebio.

b acquired by gratuitous title during marriage
(b) Acquired by gratuitous title during marriage

VELOSO v. MARTINEZ (1914) - record shows that the jewels were the sole and separate property of the wife, acquired from her mother, and in the absence of further proof, it must be presumed that they constituted a part of her paraphernal property. As such paraphernal property she exercised dominion over the same. (Article 1382, Civil Code.)

c acquired by redemption exchange
(c) Acquired by redemption/exchange
  • PLATA v. YATCO (1964) - The subsequent conveyance thereof to CelsoSaldaña, and the reconveyance of her several months afterward of the same property, did not transform it from paraphernal to conjugal property, there being no proof that the money paid to Saldaña came from common or conjugal funds (Civ. Code, Art 153). The deed of mortgage in favor of respondents Villanueva actually recites that the petitioner was the owner of the tenement in question and so does the conveyance of it by Saldaña to her (Ans., Exhs. 3 and 4).
d properties of parents
(d) Properties of parents

LAURENA v. CA (2008) – Parents of the husband executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of two parcels of land in Tanauan, Batangas as an accommodation so that the wife, who was then working at the BangkoSentralngPilipinas (BSP), could acquire a loan at a lower rate using the properties as collateral. The loan proceeds were used as additional capital for the Jeddah Caltex Station. The loan was still being paid from the income from the Jeddah Caltex Station. The Lease Contract on the Jeddah Caltex Station was signed by respondent as attorney-in-fact of his mother Juanita Laurena, leaving no doubt that it was the business of respondent’s parents. Jeddah Trucking was established from the proceeds and income of the Jeddah Caltex Station.

administration of exclusive property
ADMINISTRATION OF EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

Art. 110. The spouses retain the ownership, possession, administration and enjoyment of their exclusive properties.

Either spouse may, during the marriage, transfer the administration of his or her exclusive property to the other by means of a public instrument, which shall be recorded in the registry of property of the place the property is located. (137a, 168a, 169a)

slide98

VELOSO v. MARTINEZ (1914) – The wife had the exclusive control and management of her jewels which were her paraphernal property. Until and unless she had delivered it to her husband, before a notary public, with the intent that the husband might administer it properly. (Article 1384, Civil Code.) There is no proof in the record that she had ever delivered the same to her husband, in any manner, or for any purpose. That being true, she could not be deprived of the same by any act of her husband, without her consent, and without compliance with the provisions of the Civil Code above cited.

slide99

ONG CHING PO v. CA (1994) – the spouses who are the registered owners of the lot and building left for Iloilo to settle there. They left administration of the same with OngChing Po. They are entitled to recovery of the same from the administrator who refuses to return the same.

encumbrance disposition of exclusive property
ENCUMBRANCE/DISPOSITION OF EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
  • Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (n)
  • Art. 112. The alienation of any exclusive property of a spouse administered by the other automatically terminates the administration over such property and the proceeds of the alienation shall be turned over to the owner-spouse. (n)
slide101

WONG v. IAC (1991) – the conjugal property of the spouses cannot answer for the personal debts of the wife that did not redound to the benefit of the family and who is not the administrator of the property. Her rights over the property are merely inchoate prior to the liquidation of the CPG. Her husband also did not consent to the indebtedness.

presumption of cpg
PRESUMPTION OF CPG
  • Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. (160a)
slide103

DEWARA v. LAMELA (2011) - There is no dispute that the subject property was acquired by spouses Elenita and Eduardo during their marriage. It is also undisputed that their marital relations are governed by the conjugal partnership of gains, since they were married before the enactment of the Family Code and they did not execute any prenuptial agreement as to their property relations. Thus, the legal presumption of the conjugal nature of the property applies to the lot in question. The presumption that the property is conjugal property may be rebutted only by strong, clear, categorical, and convincing evidence—there must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership of one of the spouses, and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it.

slide104

DE LA PENA v. AVILA (2012) - As the parties invoking the presumption of conjugality under Article 160 of the Civil Code, the DelaPeñas did not even come close to proving that the subject property was acquired during the marriage between Antonia and Antegono. Beyond Antonia’s bare and uncorroborated assertion that the property was purchased when she was already married, the record is bereft of any evidence from which the actual date of acquisition of the realty can be ascertained. When queried about the matter during his cross-examination, even Alvin admitted that his sole basis for saying that the property was owned by his parents was Antonia’s unilateral pronouncement to the effect. Considering that the presumption of conjugality does not operate if there is no showing of when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired, we find that the CA cannot be faulted for ruling that the realty in litigation was Antonia’s exclusive property.

slide105

QUIAO v. QUIAO (2012) – The parties were married in January 6, 1977. Since at the time of their marriage the operative law was the Civil Code and since they did not agree on a marriage settlement, the property relations between the spouses is the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains.

what are included in cpg
WHAT ARE INCLUDED IN CPG

Art. 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:

(1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;

(2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses;

(3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse;

slide107

(4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the finder or owner of the property where the treasure is found;

(5) Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;

(6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the number of each kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and

(7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or betting. However, losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. (153a, 154a, 155, 159)

slide108

Art. 115. Retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, gratuities, usufructs and similar benefits shall be governed by the rules on gratuitous or onerous acquisitions as may be proper in each case. (n)

slide109

Art. 118. Property bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal 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. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership. (n)

slide110

Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a period of time belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which may be collected during the marriage in partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property of the spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage on the principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership. (156a, 157a)

slide111

Art. 120. The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:

When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.

In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a)

slide112

VILLANUEVA v. CA (2004) – Property acquired during the marriage are presumed to be conjugal even if the husband cohabits with someone else.

  • MENDOZA v. REYES (1983) – Properties bought during the marriage is presumed conjugal. Since the funds used to acquire the properties came from loans obtained by the spouses, the funds were conjugal in nature. Hence, the property they bought using it is conjugal as well. Registration under the name of one of the spouses does not destroy the property’s conjugal nature (Jocson doctrine).
slide113

AGUETE v. PNB (2011) – loans contracted by the husband for use in his alleged business, the same is chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

d if property bought by installment
(d) If property bought by installment
  • Art. 118. Property bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal 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. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership. (n)
slide115

JOVELLANOS v. CA (1992) – The deed of absolute sale was executed in 1975 by Philamlife, or after full payment of the rentals. Upon the execution of said deed of absolute sale, full ownership was vested in Daniel Jovellanos. Since as early as 1967, he was already married to Annette H. Jovellanos, this property necessarily belonged to his conjugal partnership with his said second wife.

As found by the trial court, the parties stipulated during the pre-trial conference in the case below that the rentals/installments under the lease and conditional sale agreement were paid as follows (a) from September 2, 1955 to January 2, 1959, by conjugal funds of the first marriage; (b) from January 3, 1959 to May 29, 1967, by capital of Daniel Jovellanos; (c) from May 30, 1967 to 1971, by conjugal funds of the second marriage; and (d) from 1972 to January 8, 1975, by conjugal funds of the spouses Gil and Mercy Jovellanos Martinez.

Both courts, therefore, ordered that reimbursements should be made in line with the pertinent provision of Article 118 of the Family Code that "any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership."

slide116

TARROSA v. DE LEON (2009) - Evidently, title to the property in question only passed to Bonifacio after he had fully paid the purchase price on June 22, 1970. This full payment, to stress, was made more than two (2) years after his marriage to Anita on April 24, 1968. In net effect, the property was acquired during the existence of the marriage; as such, ownership to the property is, by law, presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership.

e credits due
(e) Credits due
  • Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a period of time belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which may be collected during the marriage in partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property of the spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage on the principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership. (156a, 157a)
f improvements on cpg property
(f) Improvements on CPG property

Art. 120. The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:

When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.

In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a)

slide119

MUNOZ v. RAMIREZ (2010) –Eliseopaid a portion only of the GSIS loan through monthly salary deductions or a total of about P60,755.76,44 not the entire amount of the GSIS housing loan. Considering the P136,500.00 amount of the GSIS housing loan, it is fairly reasonable to assume that the value of the residential lot is considerably more than the P60,755.76 amount paid by Eliseo through monthly salary deductions.

Thus, the subject property remained the exclusive paraphernal property of Erlinda at the time she contracted with the petitioner; the written consent of Eliseo to the transaction was not necessary.

charges upon obligations of cpg
CHARGES UPON & OBLIGATIONS OF CPG

Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:

(1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support;

(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other;

(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have benefited;

(4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;

slide121

(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate property of either spouse;

(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional, vocational, or other activity for self-improvement;

(7) Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the family;

(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement; and

(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to groundless.

If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties. (161a)

slide122

Art. 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.

Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership.

However, the payment of personal debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them, as well as the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding Article have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the purpose above-mentioned. (163a)

slide123

MARIANO v. CA (1989) – Profits from the business of Esther Sanchez had been used to meet the expenses for the support of the family. The CPG of Esther and Daniel is therefore liable for the debts and obligations contracted by Esther.

slide124

AYALA INVESTMENT v. CA (1998) – If the money was given to another person and the husband acted only as a surety or guarantor, that contract by itself alone be categorized as falling within the context of “obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership”. The contract of loan is clearly for the benefit of the principal debtor and not for the surety or his family.

  • The benefits to the CPG must be one directly resulting from the loan and it cannot be merely a by-product or a spin-off of the loan itself.
slide125

CHING v. CA (2004) – the husband’s shares of stock belong to the CPG having been acquired during the marriage and are therefore presumed to be conjugal.

  • The bank failed to prove that the CPG was benefited by the husband’s act of executing a continuing guaranty and suretyship agreement for and in behalf of Phil. Blooming Mills.
  • The benefit must be those directly resulting from the loan. They cannot merely be a byproduct or a spin-off of the loan itself.
slide126

HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN v. DAILO (2005) - For the CPG to be held liable, the obligation contracted by the late MarcelinoDailo, Jr. must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. There must be the requisite showing then of some advantage which clearly accrued to the welfare of the spouses.

The burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the CPG lies with the creditor-party litigant claiming as such. He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. Other than petitioner’s bare allegation, there is nothing from the records of the case to compel a finding that, indeed, the loan obtained by the late MarcelinoDailo, Jr. redounded to the benefit of the family. Consequently, the CPG cannot be held liable for the payment of the principal obligation.

slide127

ANDO v. CAMPO (2011) – The husband as president of PACSI and PACSI itself were sued for illegal dismissal of pilers or haulers of sugar bags. The sheriff sought to levy property in the name of Ando and his wife.

  • The levy was not allowed because though Ando is president of the corporation, the property was in the name of Ando and his wife who also stands to lose the property subject of the execution without ever being party to the case. This will be tantamount to deprivation of property without due process.
without consent
WITHOUT CONSENT

COSTUNA v. DOMONDON (1989) – The husband sold his ½ share in the conjugal lot to defray his hospital expenses. He later on died and the wife continued to refuse to sign the deed of sale of the lot. The court said that her only motivation was greed. It relaxed the rule that sale without consent of the spouse renders the transaction void in view of the circumstances of the case.

slide129

CARLOS v. ABELARDO (2002) – The father-in-law advanced the money to pay for the couples’ house and lot by issuing a check payable to the vendor. The husband refused to sign the acknowledgment, only the wife signed the same. Despite his lack of consent, the SC said that under Art. 21 of the FC, he shall be solidarily liable for such loan together with the wife.

slide130

VILLANUEVA v. CHIONG (2008) – Prior to the effectivity of the the Family Code, the sale by the husband of the conjugal property without the wife’s consent is not void but merely voidable.

slide131

FUENTES v. ROCA (2010) - Consequently, when Tarciano sold the conjugal lot to the Fuentes spouses on January 11, 1989, the law that governed the disposal of that lot was already the Family Code.

In contrast to Article 173 of the Civil Code, Article 124 of the Family Code does not provide a period within which the wife who gave no consent may assail her husband’s sale of the real property. It simply provides that without the other spouse’s written consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same would be void.

c personal debts
(c) Personal debts
  • BUADO v. CA (2009) - BUADO v. CA (2009) – Wife was found liable for slander and damages. Their conjugal home was levied upon. Husband objected to this.
  • Payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.
  • The civil obligation arising from the crime of slander committed by Erlinda did not redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.
slide133

PANA v. HEIRS OF JUANITE (2012) – The wife was convicted to murder. The SC ruled that the RTC shall first ascertain that, in enforcing the writ of execution on the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and MeleciaPana for the satisfaction of the indemnities imposed by final judgment, the responsibilities enumerated in Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered.

d winnings from gambling
(d) Winnings from gambling
  • Art. 123. Whatever may be lost during the marriage in any game of chance or in betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind of gambling whether permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser and shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership but any winnings therefrom shall form part of the conjugal partnership property. (164a)
ownership administration enjoyment a joint administration
Ownership, Administration & Enjoyment(a) Joint Administration

Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall 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. (165a)

slide136

GUIANG v. CA (1998) – Sale by the husband of the house and lot without the consent of the wife is void even if they later on enter into an amicable settlement agreement which cannot be considered a continuing offer that was accepted and perfected by the parties. The tenor of the amicable settlement is to the effect that respondent wife would vacate the premises.

slide137

ROXAS v. CA (1991) – The husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership cannot enter into a contract of lease involving conjugal real property without the knowledge and consent of the wife. It is considered a conveyance and encumbrance.

slide138

DOCENA v. LAPESURA (2001) – When the husband alone signed the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, he did so as joint administrator of the CPG. Joint administration does not require that H & W always act together. The husband signed in behalf of the wife who was then in Samar. He is presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his wife of any action or claim similar to the petition involving their real property. If anybody can repudiate the certification, it is the wife who may do so.

disposition and encumbrance
Disposition and Encumbrance
  • Art. 125. Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (174a)
slide140

Under the Civil Code, sale of CPG property without the consent of the other spouse renders the contract VOIDABLE.

  • But when the Family Code took effect, sale of CPG property without consent of other spouse is VOID.
separation in fact
Separation in fact
  • Art. 127 – The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that:
  • (1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;
  • (2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other is required by law, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a summary proceeding;
  • (3) In the absence of sufficient conjugal partnership property, the separate property of both shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon petition in a summary proceeding, be given judicial authorization to administer or encumber any specific separate property of the other spouse and use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter’s share.
effect of abandonment
Effect of Abandonment
  • Art. 128 – If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.
  • The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or property relations.
  • A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling.
effects of dissolution1
EFFECTS OF DISSOLUTION
  • Art. 129. Upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, the following procedure shall apply:
  • (1) An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the conjugal partnership and the exclusive properties of each spouse.
  • (2) Amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership in payment of personal debts and obligations of either spouse shall be credited to the conjugal partnership as an asset thereof.
  • (3) Each spouse shall be reimbursed for the use of his or her exclusive funds in the acquisition of property or for the value of his or her exclusive property, the ownership of which has been vested by law in the conjugal partnership.
  • (4) The debts and obligations of the conjugal partnership shall be paid out of the conjugal assets. In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 121.
  • (5) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered to each of them.
slide144

(6) Unless the owner had been indemnified from whatever source, the loss or deterioration of movables used for the benefit of the family, belonging to either spouse, even due to fortuitous event, shall be paid to said spouse from the conjugal funds, if any.

  • (7) The net remainder of the conjugal partnership properties shall constitute the profits, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements or unless there has been a voluntary waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided in this Code.
  • (8) The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon the partition in accordance with Article 51.
  • (9) In the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best interests of said children. (181a, 182a, 183a, 184a, 185a)
slide145

TARROSA v. DE LEON (2009) – Sale of ½ of the conjugal property without the liquidation of the partnership is VOID. Prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into a title until it appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement.

slide146

QUIAO v. QUIAO (2012) – to compute net profits in a CPG:

  • Total Amount of Conjugal Assets
  • - Conjugal Debts
  • = net assets or net profits
termination due to death
Termination due to death
  • Art. 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
  • If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
  • Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)
marriages before the family code1
Marriages before the Family Code
  • Art. 131. Whenever the liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each partnership shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which partnership the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different partnerships in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)
support during cpg liquidation
Support during CPG liquidation
  • Art. 133. From the common mass of property support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them. (188a)
slide150

SANTERO v. CFI (1987) - The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or married is of no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of their right to allowance under Art. 188. While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the deceased, the New Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction. Hence, the private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero. Since the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule. Be it noted however that with respect to "spouse," the same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not common-law spouses who are the mothers of the children here).