3WW (1)

PROPERTY REGIME OF UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE(Articles 147-148)

By:

Gen Cabale

Christian Cabrera

JD Salvador

Ruby Santillana

ARTICLE 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.

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.

ARTICLE 147

ELEMENTS

Capacitated to marry

each other


each other

Live exclusively w/ each other as husband and

wife


wife

W/o benefit of marriage or under a void

marriage


marriage

• Refers to legal capacity as provided in Article 5 FC– “Any male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards

not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38 may contract marriage.”

• Such incapacity are such as, but not limited to, incapacity to contract, presence of legal impediments due to previous marriage, incestuous relationships, marriages against public policy, or those incapacity that would render a contracting of marriage void.

• Both spouses must be capacitated to marry each other.


each other


each other

1st ELLEMENT

2nd ELEMENT

*INCLUDES: marriages of psychological incapacity (Art.36), bad faith of both spouses in a subsequent marriage (Art.44), failure to comply with the requirements of Article 52 (Art.53), absence of formal requisites (Art.3), etc.


marriage


marriage

• For this Article to apply, there must not be a marriage between partners or if any, the same must be void ab initio as provided in Articles 36, 44, 53, and void marriages where there is absence of the formal requisites.

3rd ELEMENT

• Exclusive cohabitation must be existing for this Article will apply. A bigamous relationship cannot be held to be an exclusive cohabitation and, thus, such relationship does not fall within Article 147.


wife


wife

ELNA MERCADO-FEHR VS. BRUNO FEHR, G.R. NO. 152716

ILLUSTRATION

Mercado-Fehr vs. Fehr

• In March 1983, after a long distance courtship, Elna left Cebu City to live-in with Bruno, where a child was born on December 3, 1983. They got married on March 14, 1985.

• They purchased on installment a condominium unit, Suite 204 at LCG Condominium, as evinced by a Contract To Sell dated July 25, 1983 executed by Bruno as the buyer and J.V. Santos Commercial Corporation as the seller. Elna also signed the contract as witness, using the name “Elna Mercado Fehr.” Upon completion of payment, the title to the condominium unit was issued in the name of Elna.

Mercado-Fehr vs. Fehr

• The marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. The judgment became final and executory in the lower court.

• In the declaration of nullity of the marriage case, there arose a controversy as to the ownership of the said property.

-Whether or not the rule on co-ownership applies

Presumption on Ownership

• Absent any proof to the contrary, properties acquired in such cases are presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts.

• Under Article 147, partners under this setup, even if not contributing financially to the acquisition of property, are presumed co-owners of such purchases and are co-equal in the ownership thereof.

– Efforts alone in the care and maintenance of the family and household are considered contributions in the acquisition of the property.

STRUCTURE

Salaries and Wages

Salaries and Wages

Property acquired w/

exclusive funds


exclusive fundsProperty acquired

through work or industry

Property acquired


Property acquired while

they live together


they live together

Fruits of separate property


Conjugal HomeConjugal Home

ARTICLE 147

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: Salaries and wages shall be owned by equal shares.Salaries and Wages

Salaries and Wages

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: Property acquired shall be governed by co-ownership absent any proof that the same was bought with exclusive funds which, in such case, shall be owned by him/her exclusively.Property

acquired w/ exclusive funds


exclusive funds

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: Property acquired through work or industry governed by co-ownership

Property acquired


Property acquired


ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: Property acquired while they live together shall be owned by them in equal shares


they live together


they live together

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: Fruits of separate property are not part of co-ownership



ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: Conjugal home will be owned equally

Conjugal HomeConjugal Home

Prohibitions

• Spouses can’t dispose his/her share without consent of the other or after cohabitation.

• Spouses may alienate in favor of the other his/her share but can’t donate or waive any interest in co-ownership

Forfeiture

Forfeiture takes place upon termination of cohabitation.

Net share of the spouse who contracted a void marriage in bad faith is forfeited to:

– Common children– In the event of waiver of common

children, descendants– In the absence of descendants, the

innocent party

ARTICLE 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 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 share 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 bad faith.

ARTICLE 148

ELEMENTS

A man a woman living together as

husband and wife, without benefit of marriage, but are not capacitated to

marry;

A man a woman living together as

husband and wife, without benefit of marriage, but are not capacitated to

marry;

An adulterous relationship even if it occurred prior to the effectivity of the Family Code;

An adulterous relationship even if it occurred prior to the effectivity of the Family Code;

A bigamous or

polygamous marriage

A bigamous or

polygamous marriage

Void marriages by

reason of public policy under Article

38

Void marriages by

reason of public policy under Article

38

Incestuous void marriages under Article

37

Incestuous void marriages under Article

37

LUPO ATIENZA V. YOLANDA DE CASTRO, G.R. NO. 169698

ILLUSTRATION

Atienza vs. De Castro

• Lupo, a married man cohabited with Yolanda as husband and wife. During their coverture, they allegedly acquired a real property and registered it under the name of Yolanda. Their cohabitation turned sour, hence, they parted.

• He filed an action for partition contending that they owned it in common under the concept of limited co-ownership. Yolanda contended that she alone was the owner as she acquired it thru her own savings as a businesswoman.

• The RTC declared the property subject of co-ownership, but the CA reversed it as he failed to prove material contribution in the acquisition of the same.

Atienza vs. De Castro

• The court held that it is not disputed that the parties herein were not capacitated to marry each other because Lupo Atienza was validly married to another woman at the time of his cohabitation with Yolanda.

-Their property regime, therefore, is governed by Article 148 of the Family Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, adulterous relationship, relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons, and multiple alliances of the same married man

STRUCTURE

Salaries and Wages

Salaries and Wages

Property acquired by

either exclusively by

own funds



own funds

Property Acquired

while living together

Property Acquired

while living together

Properties acquired by both through their work or

industry


industry

ARTICLE 148

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: seperately owned by the parties and if any of them is married, his/her salary is the property of the Conjugal Property of gains of the legitimate marriage

Salaries and Wages

Salaries and Wages

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: It BELONGS to any partyProperty acquired by


own funds



own funds

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: 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 on proportion to their respective contribution

-In Juaniza vs Jose 89 SCRA 306, where a woman who was living in a bigamous relationship with a married man was sought to be liable for an accident involving a vehicle driven by the bigamous husband and where the vehicle was registered under the name of the husband. The SC ruled that the women cannot be held liable as a co-owner of the vehicle because the vehicle must be considered the conjugal property of the bigamous husband and his legitimate spouse.

-In Belcodero vs Court of Appeals, 45 SCAD 400, 227 SCRA 303, it was held that the property was the conjugal partnership of the legitimate first marriage and which presumption had not been convincingly rebutted and that there was no co-ownership created the bigamous relationship with respect to a property.


industry


industry

ILLUSTRATION

NOTE: No presumption of joint acquisition. When there is evidence of joint acquisition but none as to the extent of actual contribution, there is a presumption of equal sharing

Property Acquired while living together

Property Acquired while living together

FORFEITURE

• If one 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 party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his/her share shall be forfeited in the same manner provided for in Art. 147.

• The above rules apply even if both parties are in bad faith.

-If a spouse and his bigamous wife who happens to be a relative by consanguinity within the first civil degree of the former, jointly contribute to their co-ownership while living together, with the husband contributing his salary and the bigamous-cousin-wife likewise contributing her salary, the co-ownership shall be liquidated as the share of the spouse who is obviously in bad faith shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership of his existing valid marriage while the share of the bigamous-cousin-wife who is also in bad faith shall be forfeited of their common children.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ART. 147 AND ART. 148

ARTICLE 147 ARTICLE 148

APPLICABILITY

PROPERTY REGIME Co-ownership Limited co-ownership

Salaries Equal share Separate ownership

Properties Acquired Presumption on co-ownership Presumption on sole ownership

Own Funds Presumed to be owned by such party subject to revocation

Sole ownership to such party

Through Work or Industry Co-ownership Co-ownership

Presumption onAcquisition of Property

Both Sole ownership

COVERED PROPERTIES

Fruits

Inheritance

Purchased Properties

Salaries Owned Separately

END.THANK YOU!

By:

Gen Cabale

Christian Cabrera

JD Salvador

Ruby Santillana

Documents

3WW (1)