Persons Reviewer Comprehensive

8/11/2019 Persons Reviewer Comprehensive

1/39


2/39

Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of thefamily. The expenses for such support and other conjugalobligations shall be paid from the community property and, in theabsence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separateproperties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income orfruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separateproperties.

NOTES:

Old law: Husband has the burden of supporting the family;New law: joint obligation of the spouses.

Sources of support (in order)a) Community property or conjugal propertyb) If none, from the income or fruits of the spouses separate

propertiesc) If none, or insufficient, from their separate properties

Absolute Separation of property has different rule.- Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion totheir income. If insufficient or in default, to the current value oftheir separate properties.

Liability for support of the spouse, common children,legitimate children of either; against whom chargeable.a) Absolute Community of Property Regime- chargeable against community property- if insufficient, spouses are solidarily liable for unpaid balancewith their separate properties, except for ante-nuptial debts (Art94, par. 9)b) Conjugal Partnership- Conjugal property is liable- if insufficient, spouses is solidarily liable for unpaid balance withtheir separate properties.c) Absolute Separation of Property- no express provision

- Both spouses shall proportionately bear the family expenses. Buttheir liability to creditors for family expenses is solidary.

Support for Illegitimate Childrena) Separate property of their parentsb) If none of insufficient, absolute community or conjugal

partnership, if financially capable.- The advances made shall be deducted from the sh

obliged spouse in the absolute community or conjupartnership upon liquidation

Parents-in-law have no obligation to support children-in-l(Pelayo v. Lauron, et. al)

Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right andthe duty of both spouses. The expenses for such managementshall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70.

NOTES: Old law: it is the wife who is in charge of the management ofthe house; New Law: it is both the husband and the wife.

Management is both a right and a duty.

Expenses of management; Joint; paid on accordance 70.a) From community propertyb) If none, income or fruits of separate propertyc) If none or insufficient, from the separate properties

Expenses NOT for the family consumption is not binding againscommunity property. It is to be paid from the personal property spouse.

(Art 68-71)Ilusorio v. Buildner (May 12, 2000) Potenciano Illusorio, 86 yr. Old, a lawyer, possessed a property valued

at million pesos, and the Chairman of the Board and President ofBaguio City Club. He married Erlinda on July 11, 1942. They have 6children. They separated on 1972.

Potenciano went back to the Phil. from US on 1997 and stayed withErlinda for 5 months in Antipolo. On Feb 1998, Erlinda filed with the

RTC a petition for guardianship over person and property ofPotenciano. On May 1998, after attending a meeting in Baguio City,Potenciano did not return home to Antipolo. On March 1999, Erlindafiled with CA a petition for habeas corpus for the custody ofPotenciano. CA dismissed the petition for Habeas Corpus butawarded visitation rights over her husband.

Issue: Whether the award for visitation right is proper. No.

SC: CA exceeded its authority when it awarded visitation rightsErlinda. Visitation right was never prayed for by erlinda. Potencmay not be subject of Visitation Right against his free choice anto privacy.

No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husb

live with his wife. Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of Habeas Corpus.

(Art 68-71) In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil ceremony. HELD:Art. 40 of the FC provides that, The absolute null


3/39

TY V. CA 2000 They had a church wedding in the same year as well. In 1980, theJuvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared their marriageas null and void; the civil one for lack of marriage license and thesubsequent church wedding due to the lack of consent of the parties.In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in1991, Reyes filed for an action for declaration of nullity of his marriagewith Ofelia. He averred that they lack a marriage license at the time ofthe celebration and that there was no judicial declaration yet as to thenullity of his previous marriage with Anna. Ofelia presented evidenceproving the existence of a valid marriage license including the specificlicense number designated. The lower court however ruled thatOfelias marriage with Reyes is null and void. The same was affirmed

by the CA applying the provisions of the Art 40 of the FC.ISSUE:Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous of marriageof Reyes can be invoked in the case at bar.

previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriagebasis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous mvoid. This means that before one can enter into a second mhe must first acquire a judicial declaration of the nullity of the pmarriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basis sofinal judgment declaring the previous marriage as void. For puother than remarriage, other evidences may be presented adeclaration can be passed upon by the courts. In the case at lower court and the CA cannot apply the provision of the Fmarriages entered by Reyes were solemnized prior to the FC. CC did not have any provision that states that there must bedeclaration before remarriage can be done hence Ofelias m

with Reyes is valid. The provisions of the FC (took effect in 87)be applied retroactively especially because they would impvested rights of Ofelia under the CC which was operational durmarriage with Reyes.

ARTICLE 72: When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties tothe conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger,dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party mayapply to the court for relief.

NEGLECT must not amount to Psychological Incapacity1. Either spouse neglecting his or her duties to the conjugal union; or2. Either spouse committing acts which tend to bring danger, dishonoror injury to the other or to the family.INJURY is physical, moral, emotional or psychological NOT economicFORMS OF RELIEF:

1. Injunction2. Receivership3. Guardianship4. Sole administration of properties

Court CANNOT COMPEL the wife to live with or return to thehusband.

ARTICLE 73: Either spouse may exercise any legitimate

profess ion, occupat ion, business or act iv i ty wi thout the consent

of the other. The latter may object only on valid, seriou s, and

moral grounds.

In case of disagreement, the court shal l dec ide whether or n ot :

1. The object ion is proper; and

2. Benef it has accrued to the fami ly pr ior to the object ion or

thereafter. If the benefit accrued p rior to the ob jection, the

resul t ing obl igat ion shal l be enforced against the comm uni ty

proper ty. If the benefit accrued thereafter, such ob ligation shall

be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has

not ob tained consent .

The other spouse may object only on (a) valid; (b)serious; and (c)moral groundsIn case of disagreement:


4/39

1. The Court will decide2. When the disagreement is referred to the court, it will determine

a. Whether the objection is properb. Whether the benefit has accrued to the family prior to the

objection or thereafter.

Go Vs. Court of Appeals Facts:In 1981, Hermogenes Ong and Jane Ong contracted with Nancy Gofor the latter to film their wedding. After the wedding, the newlywedinquired about their wedding video but Nancy Go said its not yetready. She advised them to return for the wedding video after theirhoneymoon. The newlywed did so but only to find out that Nancy Go

can no longer produce the said wedding video because the copy hasbeen erased.

The Ongs then sued Nancy Go for damages. Nancys husband, AlexGo, was impleaded. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses Ongand awarded in their favor, among others, P75k in moral damages. Inher defense on appeal, Nancy Go said: that they erased the videotape because as per the terms of their agreement, the spouses aresupposed to claim their wedding tape within 30 days after thewedding, however, the spouses neglected to get said wedding tapebecause they only made their claim after two months; that herhusband should not be impleaded in this suit.

ISSUE: Whether or not Nancy Go is liable for moral damag

HELD:Yes. Her contention is bereft of merit. It is shown tspouses Ong made their claim after the wedding but were advreturn after their honeymoon. The spouses advised Go thhoneymoon is to be done abroad and wont be able to return

months. It is contrary to human nature for any newlywed coneglect to claim the video coverage of their wedding; the fact Ongs filed a case against Nancy Go belies such asConsidering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact tevent therein recorded a wedding which in our cultusignificant milestone to be cherished and remembered clonger be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was coawarding the Ongs moral damages in compensation for theanguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and humiliation tOngs suffered and which under the circumstances could be aas allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218 of the Civil Code.

Anent the issue that Nancy Gos husband should not be inclthe suit, this argument is valid. Under Article 73 of the Familythe wife may exercise any profession, occupation or engbusiness without the consent of the husband. In this case,

shown that it was only Nancy Go who entered into a contract wspouses Ong hence only she (Nancy) is liable to pay the daawarded in favor of the Ongs.

AYALA INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS CA Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) obtained a P50,300,000 loan frompetitioner Ayala Investment and Development Corp (AIDC). As addedsecurity for the credit line extended to PBM, respondent Alfredo Ching,Exec. Vice President of PBM, executed securing agreements on Dec10, 1980 and March 20, 1981 making himself jointly and severallyanswerable with PBMs indebtedness to AIDC.PBM failed to pay the loan. Thus, in 1981, AIDC filed a case for sumof money against PBM AND Alfredo Ching. After trial, the courtordered the debtors PBM and Ching to jointly and severally pay AIDCof the amount loaned.The lower court issued a writ of execution, ending appeal, and anotice of sheriff sale on 3 conjugal properties of respondent spouses.Private respondent filed a case of injunction against petitioners toenjoin the auction sale alleging that petitioners cannot enforce thejudgment against the conjugal partnership levied, on the ground thatthe subject loan and did not contribute to the benefit of said conjugalpartnership lower court issued TRO to prevent sheriff from proceedingwith the enforcement of the writ of execution.

ISSUE: (1) Whether the obligation contracted by respondent huredounded to the benefit of the family? NO(2) Whether the securing of the obligation is part of the professthe husband? NORULING:

(1) The conjugal partnership should not be made liable fosurety agreement which was clearly for the befit of a thparty.

(2) As a surety for his own employer, this should not be tamean he had embarked in the business of surety or gu

The court ruled that there are 2 circumstances in relation to thein the case at bar:

a.) Where the respondent husband acted as the principalobligator wherein he directly received the money for hbusiness, obligator si deemed to benefit the CP

Where the respondent husband acted only as a surety or guarathe obligations cannot be deemed to benefit the CP

PROPERTY RELATIONS


5/39

Art. 74:The property relationship between husband and wife shall begoverned in the following order:1. By marriage settlements executed before the marriage;2. By the provisions of this Code; and3. By the local custom.

Property Relations Between Husband & WifeGoverned by:

1. marriage settlements executed before the marriage orantenuptial agreements2. provisions of the Family Code3. local customs (when spouses repudiate absolute community)

Marriage Settlements: must be in writing signed by the parties, andmade prior to the celebration of the marriage if it is not in writing itshall be unenforceable.

- If there is no marriage settlement agreed upon or if the sameis void, then the absolute community if property will prevail.

Requisites:1. made before celebration of marriage2. in writing (even modifications)3. signed by the parties4. not prejudice third persons unless registered in the civil registry5. to fix terms and conditions of their property relations

6. additional signatories18-21: parentscivil interdictees & disabled: guardian

Not applicable when:1. both spouses are aliens, even if married in the Philippines2. as to extrinsic validity of contracts3. contrary stipulation

EFFECT OF MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT:1. Property in marriage settlement is registered did not redound

to family, creditor cant get from co-owned2. If marriage settlement is not registered, can get from co-

owned3. If redounded to benefit of family can get from co-owned even

if not registered.

*Marriage settlement must be fair, they must exercise good faith incontracting the marriage settlement. However if the agreement is notfair as long as the disadvantaged spouse shows that he/sheunderstood it then the marriage settlement shall be maintained.LOCAL CUSTOMS: rule of conduct formed by repetition of actsuniformly observed as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory.

EFFECT OF NO MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT:1. If the mortgage was registered then the new spouses

property will also be liable.2. If the mortgage was not registered the new spouse wi

liable but the mortgage will be impaired and the debtorspouse will loose the right to make use of the period.

Must give new securities so as not to loose thperiod.

* If the marriage settlement does not particularize any valid proregime such provision is void and thus the absolute communityproperty shall prevail.

Art. 75:The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agreeupon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains,complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absenceof a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, thesystem of absolute community of property as established in this Codeshall govern.

- If a marriage settlement is absent or property regime agreed upon isvoid, Absolute community of property will govern.

Article 76:Modifications in marriage settlement must be made beforethe celebration of the marriage.

Art. 77:The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shallbe in writing, signed by the parties and executed before thecelebration of the marriage. They shall not prejudice third personsunless they are registered in the local civil registry where the marriagecontract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties.(Oral marriage settlement is VOID)

Exception under Article 66 and 67: Revival or adoption of neproperty regime when those legally separated have reconciled.Exception under Article 128: in case of abandonment of a spother spouse can petition for receivership or administration ofproperties or judicial decree of separation of propertiesException under Article 135: Further grounds for judicial sepaof propertyException under Article 136: voluntary and verified petition inof both spouses to modify regime into separate community of pregime.

Pana V Heirs of Juanite ( Dec. 10, 2012) Issue: Whether or not the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:


6/39

Facts: Melecia and Efreno are husband and wife who were involved ina crime. The wife, Melicia was convicted of the crime and Afren wasacquitted due to insufficiency of evidence. Melecia as the guilty partywas ordered together with other guilty parties to pay jointly andseverally the heirs of the victim.

The heirs of the victim filed a motion for execution of her realproperties. RTC then ordered the issuance of writ resulting in the levyof real properties in the names of Efren and Melecia. Subsequently, anotice of levy and a notice of sale on execution were issued.

Melecia can be levied and executed upon the satisfaction of Meliciascivil liability in the murder case.

Rulling: Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriagesettlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration ofthe marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and136.Clearly, therefore, the conjugal partnership of gains that governed themarriage between Efren and Melecia who were married prior to 1988cannot be modified except before the celebration of that marriage.Post-marriage modification of such settlements can take place onlywhere: (a) the absolute community or conjugal partnership was

dissolved and liquidated upon a decree of legal separation;18

(b) thespouses who were legally separated reconciled and agreed to revivetheir former property regime;

19(c) judicial separation of property had

been had on the ground that a spouse abandons the other without justcause or fails to comply with his obligations to the family;

20(d) there

was judicial separation of property under Article 135; (e) the spousesjointly filed a petition for the voluntary dissolution of their absolutecommunity or conjugal partnership of gains.

21None of these

circumstances exists in the case of Efren and Melecia.Art. 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband orthe wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to theconjugal properties partnership except insofar as they redounded tothe benefit of the family.Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon thembe charged to the partnership.

(1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and thelegitimate children of either spouse; however, the support ofillegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Con Support;(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugalpartnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them withconsent of the other;(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without thconsent of the other to the extent that the family may have ben(4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or m

repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during tmarriage upon the separate property of either spouse;(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or completprofessional, vocational, or other activity for self-improvement;(7) Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redoto the benefit of the family;(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses iof their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose ofcommencing or completing a professional or vocational course other activity for self-improvement; and(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit to be groundless.If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoingliabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid bawith their separate properties.1wphi1

Contrary to Efrens contention, Article 121 above allows paymethe criminal indemnities imposed on his wife, Melecia, out of thpartnership assets even before these are liquidated. Indeed, it that such indemnities "may be enforced against the partnershipafter the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding article habeen covered."[26]No prior liquidation of those assets is requirThis is not altogether unfair since Article 122 states that "at the liquidation of the partnership, such [offending] spouse shall becharged for what has been paid for the purposes above-mentio

ARTICLE 79

For the validity of any marriage settlement executed b y a person

upon w hom a sentence of c iv i l interd ic t ion has been pronounced

or wh o is subject to any o ther disabi l i ty, i t shal l be indispensable

for the guardian appointed by a comp etent court to be made a

party thereto.

This article dwells on marriage settlement entered into by a civil

interdictee.Civil Interdiction- An accessory penalty, which has the effect ofdepriving the offender during the time of h is sentence of the rights ofparental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or propertyof any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his propertyand of the right to dispose of such property by any act or anyconveyance inter vivosThus, the guardian of a person sentenced to civil interdiction, or a

ARTICLE 80

In the absence of a contrary st ipulation in a marriage settlement,

the property relat ions of the spouses shal l be governed by

Phil ippin e laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of

marriage and their residence.

This rule shal l not apply :

. Where both spouses are aliens;

. With respect to the extr ins ic val id i ty of c ontracts af fect ing

property not s i tuated in the Phi l ippines and executed in the

country where the property is located; and

. With respect to the extr ins ic val id i ty of c ontracts entered into in

the Phi l ippines but af fect ing property s i tuated in a foreign

country w hose laws requi re di f ferent formal i t ies for i ts extr ins ic

validity.

Art 80 provides that Philippine laws shall govern the property relations

ARTICLE 81

Everyth ing st ipulated in the set t lements or contracts referr

in the preceding articles in consideration of a future marria

inc luding donat ions between the prospect ive spouses mad

therein, shal l be rendered void i f the marr iage does not tak

place. However, st ipulat ions that do not depend up on the

celebration of the marriages sh all be valid.

If such marriage does not take place, the marriage settlement wbecome void and ineffective, except stipulations that do no t depupon the celebration of the marriage for their validity. ex: Child


7/39

person suffering from disability (except minority) must be made partyto the marriage settlement of either of such persons.

of the spouses wherever they reside or regardless of the place ofcelebration of marriage or place where their properties is located.In Filipino-alien marriages: If husband is filipino, Philippine law shallapply; If wife is Filipino, the national law of the husband shall apply.Assumption: the husband is the administrator of the property,therefore his national law shall apply to these cases.

Art 82 - Donations by reason of marriage Requisites:1. made before its celebration;2. in consideration of the Marriage; and3. in favor of one or both of the future spouses

Art . 83What rules govern Donations?ordinary donations established in Title III of Book III of the Civil

CodeArt. 84Effects of Marriage settlements other than AbsoluteCommunity

1. They cannot donate to each other in their marriagesettlements more than one-fifthof their present property.Meaning:They can still donate, as long as it does NOTexceed 1/5. (E.g. Moderate gifts/donations in familyoccasions)

2. Any excess (1/5) shall be considered void.

Donations of future propertyshall be governed by the provisions ontestamentary succession and the formalities of wills.

Art. 85Donations subject to EncumbrancesValid.

In case of Foreclosure:1. property is sold for lessthan the total amount of the

obligation secured, the donee(the one who received)shall NOT be liable for the deficiency;

2. property is sold for more than the total amount of theobligation secured, the donee(the one who received)SHALL be entitled to the excess.

Art. 86When can donations (in case of marriage) be revoked? (1) If the marriage is NOT celebrated or judicially declared void abinitio [except donations made in the marriage settlements, which shallbe governed by Article 81];(2) marriage withoutthe consent of the parents or guardian;(3) annulled, donee acted in bad faith;(4) separation, donee being the guilty spouse;(5) If there is a resolutory condition, and is subsequently compliedwith;(6) donee has committed an act of ingratitude.

Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct orindirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void,except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other onthe occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall alsoapply to persons living together as husband and wife without avalid marriage.

NOTES:

Donations or gratuitous made during the marriage betweenspouses done directly or indirectly(through the children or grandchildren of a spouse by previousmarriage) are VOID.

Reasons for nullity of the said donations:

ARCABA v. TABANCURA

Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana became theregistered owners of Lot No. 437-A located at Balintawak St. and RizalAvenue in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte in January 1956.Zosima died in 1980 hence Francisco and his mother in law executeda deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights, where the latterwaived her share consisting of of the p roperty in favor of Francisco.Since Francisco do not have any children to take care of him after hisretirement, he asked Leticia, his niece, Leticias cousin, Luzvimindaand Cirila Arcaba, the petitioner, who was then a widow and took careof Franciscos house as well as the store inside.

HELD:The court in this case considered a sufficient proof of common relationship wherein donation is not valid. The conclusion wason the testimony of Tabancura and certain documents bearing tsignature of Cirila Comille such as application for business pesanitary permit and the death certificate of Francisco. Also, thethat Cirila did not demand her wages is an indication that she wsimply a caregiveremployee.

Cohabitation means more than sexual intercourse, especially wone of the parties is already old and may no longer be interestesex at the very least, cohabitation is a public assumption of menwomen holding themselves out to the public as such.


8/39

a) To protect unsecured creditors from being defrauded by anyor both spouses;

b) To prevent the stronger spouse from persuading the weakerone to transfer of the latters property to the former;

c) To prevent the indirect modification of the marriagesettlements of the spouses during the marriage which isprohibited (Art.76, FC) by the simple expedient of transferringto the other spouse properties subject of the contract.

Provision applies also to donations between common lawspouses.

- Reason: they will be in a better situation than those whoare living within valid marriage.

- To declare the donation void, it must be proved that the

parties are having common law relationship at the time ofthe donation

Exceptions: Moderate Giftswhich the spouses may give toeach other on occasions of family rejoicing or celebration (Familydistress not included).- Moderate is relative, it depends upon the financial capability andsocial standing of the donor.

Other Exceptions:a) Donation mortis causa, takes effect only after the death of

the donor (After dissolution of marriage)b)Donation propter nuptias, given before marriage.

Indirect donation includes:a) Children whom the other spouses had by another marriage.b) Presumptive heirc) Non-relative, used as dummies

Only those who are prejudiced can assail the donation.

Donation to paramour is VOID, ownership can be acquired by(extra-ordinary)prescription.

Husband and wife cannot sell or lease property to each other(also common law spouse).- Exceptions:a) when separation of property was agreed upon in marriagesettlementsb) If there has been a judicial separation of their property underArt. 135 of the FC.

Husband and wife are cannot enter into Universal Partnershipof property (indirect donation).

According to Leticia, Francisco and Cirila were lovers since they sleptin the same room. On the other hand, Erlinda Tabancura, anotherniece of Francisco claimed that the latter told her that Cirila was hismistress. However, Cirila defensed herself that she was a merehelper who could enter the masters bedroom when Francisco askedher to and that Francisco was too old for her. She denied havingsexual intercourse with Francisco. When the nieces got married,Cirila who was then 34 year-old widow started working for Franciscowho was 75 year old widower. The latter did not pay him any wagesas househelper though her family was provided with food and lodging.Franciscos health deteriorated and became bedridden. Tabancuratestified that Franciscos only source of income was the rentals from

his lot near the public streets.

In January 1991, few months before Francisco died, he executed aDeed of Donation Inter Vivos where he ceded a portion o f Lot 437-Acomposed of 150 sq m., together with his house to Cirila whoaccepted the same. The larger portion of 268 sq m. was left under hisname. This was made in consideration of the 10 year of faithfulservices of the petitioner. Atty Lacaya notarized the deed and waslater registered by Cirila as its absolute owner.

In Octoer 1991, Francisco died and in 1993, the lot received by Cirilahad a market value of P57,105 and assessed value of P28,550. Thedecedents nephews and nieces and his heirs by intestate successionalleged that Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco.

ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by

Francisco in Arcabas favor was valid.

Hence, the deed of donation by Francisco in favor of Cirila is vounder Art. 87 of the Family Code.

ACP

Art 88. The absolute community of property between spouses

shall commence at the precise moment that the marriage iscelebrated. Any stipulation, express or implied, for thecommencement of the community regime at any other time shallbe void.

In absence of Marriage settlement (during the effectivity of FC), thedefault regime of property is ACP.

Art. 89. No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolutecommunity of property during the marriage can be made exceptin case of judicial separation of property.

When the waiver takes place upon a judicial separation ofproperty, or after the marriage has been dissolved or annulled,the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall berecorded as provided in Article 77. The creditors of the spousewho made such waiver may petition the court to rescind thewaiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amountof their credits.

Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership shall apply to theabsolute community of property between the spouses in amatters not provided for in this Chapter.


9/39

Precise moment refers to the very moment that t he spouses saytheir I Dos

In ACP, the husband and wife are co- owners of all the properties thatthey bring into the marriage and those acquired by each or both ofthem during the marriage which properties, upon the dissolution of themarriage, the spouses will divide equally.

General Rule: no waiver of rights shares and effects of the absolutecommunity of property

Exception: 1. In case of judicial separation, which includes dissolutionof the ACP as a result of legal separation; 2. In case the marriage isdissolved by death or annulment.

Waiver is allowed: 1. Must appear in public instrument (to effect 3rd

person); must be recorded in the office of the Local Civil Registrar,where the marriage contract is recorded and in the proper registries ofproperty.

Section 2. What Constitutes Community Property

Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in themarriage settlements, the community property shall consist of allthe property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebrationof the marriage or acquired thereafter.

All properties belonging to H and W before marriage, except thoseexcluded by Art. 92, are automatically converted into community orcommon property of the spouses, by marriage, without need of anyjudicial act on the part of the owner-spouse transferring the same tothe community.

The spouses have no option to exclude specific properties from thecommunity.

Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the communityproperty:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title byeither spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any,unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantorthat 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 e ither spousewho has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and thefruits as well as the income, if any, of such property.

By gratuitous title means by donation , or testate or intestate

succession.

Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumedbelong to the community, unless it is proved that it is one othose excluded therefrom.

Section 3. Charges and Obligations of the Absolute Community

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 onSupport;

(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 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;

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

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

(8) The value of what i s 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 or other activity for self-improvement;


10/39

(9) Ante-nuptial 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 tshare 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 separateproperties.

Solidary liability:If the community properties are not sufficient to pay for all the liabilities under this article except those falling under p ar. 9. The spouses are solidarily liable to creditors with their separate properties.

The spouse who pays the creditor with his o r her separate property may get reimbursement from the ACP at the time o f liquidation.ARTICLE 95: Whatever may be lost during the marriage in any

game of chance, bet t ing, sweepstakes, or any other k ind of

gambl ing, whether permi t ted or proh ib i ted by law, shal l be borne

by the loser and shal l not be charged to the communi ty but any

winnings therefrom shal l form part of the communi ty p roperty .

The GAMBLER bears the losses, but the winnings shall go to theabsolute community.

ARTILE 96: The adminis t rat ion and enjoyment of the commun i ty

property shal l belong to both s pouses jo int ly . In case of

disagreement, the husband's decis ion shal l prevai l , subject to

recourse to the court by the wi fe for proper remedy, which must

be avai led of wi th in f ive years from the date of the con tract

implement ing such decis ion.

In the event that one spouse is incapaci tated or otherwise unable

to part ic ipate in the adminis t rat ion of the com mon propert ies, the

other spouse may assume sole pow ers of adminis t rat ion. These

powers do not inc lude dispos i t ion or encum brance wi thout

author i ty of the court or the wri t ten consent of the other spouse.

In the absence of such author i ty or consent , the dispos i t ion or

encum brance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be

construed as a cont inuing of fer on the part of the consent ing

spouse and the thi rd person, and m ay be perfected as a binding

contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse orauthor izat ion by the court before the of fer is wi thdrawn by ei ther

or both of ferors.

*JOINT administration by both husband and wife.*In case of DISAGREEMENT, the husband will prevail, SUBJECT torecourse to the court by the WIFE for the proper remedy.*ONLY within 5 years from date of contract implementing thehusbands decision.*BUT if wife ratifies contract express or implied cannot annul anymore.

The other spouse may assume sole powers of administration when:1.

1. The other spouse is incapacitated.2. The other spouse is unable to participate (i.e. abroad)

The power to administer does not include the power to dispose orencumber solely by 1 spouse. Court authority or the approval of theother spouse is required.

ARTICLE 97:Either spouse may dispose by will of his or her inin the community prope rty.

*While the community subsists, either spouse may not dispose vivos of his interest to the extent of of the community propertyunless otherwise stipulated in the marriage settlement. For thathe may dispose of such interest only by will.

ARTICLE 98:Neither spouse may donate any community propertywithout the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, withoutthe consent of the other, make moderate donations from thecommunity property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or

ARTICLE 99: The absolute communi ty terminates:(1) Upon the death of either spou se;

(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;

(3) When the marriage is annulled or dec lared void; or

ARTICLE 100:The separation in fact between husband and winot affect the regime of absolute community except that:(1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to livetherein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be suppo


11/39

family distress

General Rule: In order to donate any community property, the otherspouse must consent.Exception: Moderate donations do not need the consent of the otherspouse if for:

1. Charity2. Occasions of family rejoicing or distress

*What is moderate depends on the financial circumstances of thecouple, the value of the property dona ted, and their social position.

(4) In case of judicial separation of propert y during th e marriage

under Ar ticles 134 to 138.

1. Death (Apply Art. 103)- Same proceeding as settlement of estate.Spouse shall liquidate property if no judicial settlement proceedingwithin 1 year. After 1 year cannot may encumbrance on p roperty.2. Legal separation (Apply Arts. 63 and 64)4. Annulled or void (Apply rules on co-owenership)5. Judicial separation of property (Apply Arts.134 to 138

the ACP is not synonymous with the dissolution of the

marriage. In Articles 99 (2) and (4), the ACP is dissolved although themarriage is not. However, the dissolution of the marriage automaticallyresults in the dissolution o f the ACP.

when a marriage is declared as a nullity, there is noACP to dissolve since there was no property regime to begin with. Thedissolution in such a case would be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

es when theACP terminates. Another instance is when the marriage is terminatedby the reappearance of the absent spouse (Articles 42 and 43 (2).

(2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the orequired by law, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a sumproceeding;(3) In the absence of sufficient community property, the separaproperty of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the suppofamily. The spouse present shall, upon proper petition in a sumproceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or encumbspecific separate property of the other spouse and use the fruitsproceeds thereof to satisfy the latter's share.

*Separation de facto does not dissolve the ACP.

ARTICLE 101:If a spouse without just cause abandons the other orfails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrievedspouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separationof property or for authority to be the sole administrator of the absolutecommunity, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court mayimpose.

The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraphrefer to marital, parental or property relations.A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when her or shehas left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. Thespouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three monthsor has failed within the same period to give any information as to hisor her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have nointention of returning to the conjugal dwelling.

*If a spouse abandons the other spouse without just cause or fails tocomply with his or marital obligations, the aggrieved spouse maypetition the court for the following:

1. Receivership2. Judicial separation of property3. Authority to be the sole administrator.

intention of returning.Presumption of Abandonment:

When the spouse has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of 3months without giving information as to his whereabouts.

ARTICLE 102:Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime,the following procedure shall apply:(1) An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the propertiesof the absolute community and the exclusive properties of eachspouse.(2) The debts and obligations of the absolute community shall be paid

out of its assets. In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spousesshall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separateproperties in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraphof Article 94.(3) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shallthereafter be delivered to each of them.(4) The net remainder of the properties of the absolute communityshall constitute its net assets, which shall be divided equally betweenhusband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreedupon in the marriage settlements, or unless there has been avoluntary waiver of such share provided in this Code. For purpose ofcomputing the net profits subject to fo rfeiture in accordance withArticles 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be theincrease in value between the market value of the community propertyat the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value atthe time of its dissolution.

(5) The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall bedelivered upon partition, in accordance with Article 51.(6) Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in the partition of theproperties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situatedshall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of thecommon children choose to remain. Children below the age o f sevenyears are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court hasdecided otherwise. In case there in no such majority, the court shall

Steps in liquidation:1. Inventory

a. 3 listsa.i. Inventory of community propertya.ii. Inventory of separate property of tha.iii. Inventory of separate property of th

husband2. Payment of Community Debts

a. First, pay out of community assetsb. If not enough, husband and wife are solidari

with theirseparate property.3. Delivery to each spouse his or her separate property 4. Division of the net community assets

NOTE: There are special rules regarding the family ho5. Delivery of presumptive legitimes if any to the childre

a. The presumptive legitimes are given in the finstances:

a.i. Death of either spouse (Article 103a.ii. Legal Separation (Articles 63 and 6a.iii. Annulment (Articles 50 - 52)a.iv. Judicial Separation of Property (Art

134 - 137)

Reappearance of the absent spouse which terminates the 2ndmarriage(Article 43)


12/39

decide, taking into consideration the best interests of said children.

ARTICLE 103:Upon the termination of the marriage by death, thecommunity property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for thesettlement of the estate of the deceased.If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouseshall liquidate the community property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. Ifupon the lapse of the six months period, no liquidation is made, anydisposition or encumbrance involving the community property of theterminated marriage shall be void.Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage withoutcompliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of

complete separation of property shall govern the property relations ofthe subsequent marriage.

ARTICLE 104. Whenever the liquidation of the community propertiesof two or more marriages contracted by the same person before theeffectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respectivecapital, fruits and income of each community sha ll be determinedupon such proof as may be considered according to the rules ofevidence. In case of doubt as to which community the existingproperties belong, the same shall be divided between the differentcommunities in proportion to the capital and duration of each.

Chapter 4. Conjugal Partnership of GainsSection 1. General Provisions

Art. 105. In case the future spouses agree in the marriagesettlements that the regime of conjugal partnership gains shallgovern their property relations during marriage, the provisions inthis Chapter shall be of supplementary application.

The provisions of this Chapter shall a lso apply to conjugalpartnerships of gains already established between spousesbefore the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vestedrights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code orother laws, as provided in Article 256.

Definition of conjugal property: It is formed by a husband and his wife whereby they place in

a common fund and the fruits of their separate property, andincome from their work and industry, the same to be dividedbetween them EQUALLY (as a general rule) upon thedissolution of the marriage or partnership.

Duration of conjugal partnershipThe CPG is supposed to last until:

1. The dissolution of marriage like death or annulment; and2. The dissolution of the partnership, like legal separation or

judicial separation of the property.

Conjugal Partnership exists:

- Only when the same has been agreed upon in the marriage

settlement- Under CC, the general rule is the CPG; in FC, the general

rule is the absolute community of property. Hence, CPGexists on marriages celebrated before the effectivity of FC.

Distinctions: CPG vs Ordinary Partnership

Conjugal Partnership

a. No juridical personalityb. Regulated generally by lawc. Generally managed by thehusbandd. Purpose is not particularly forprofite. Few grounds for dissolution

Ordinary Partnershi

a. Has juridical personalityb. Regulated by agreemenbetween the parties and onsubsidiary by lawc. Management depends uthe situation of the partiesd. Purpose is for profite. Many grounds for dissolu

Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, thehusband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds,products, fruits and income from their separate properties andthose acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts orby chance, and, upon dissolution of the marriage or of thepartnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or bothspouses shall be divided equally between them, unless otherwiseagreed in the marriage settlements.

Properties covered by conjugal partnership:a.) The proceeds, products, fruits, and income from the separateproperties of the spousesb.) Those acquired either or both of the spouses by their efforts or bychance

Conjugal Partnership vs Absolute Community

Conjugal Partnership1. Each spouse retains his or herproperty before the marriage, andonly the fruits and income of suchproperties become part of theConjugal Property during themarriage.2. The separate properties of thespouses are returned upon thedissolution of the partnership,and only the net profits of thepartnership are divided equallybetween the spouses or theirheirs.3. The capital properties of the

Absolute Communit1. All the properties ownedspouses at the time of themarriage become CommunProperty except those provunder Art 92.2. The net remainder of theproperties of the absolutecommunity are divided equbetween the spouses or theheirs upon the dissolution aliquidation of the communitproperty.3. Based essentially on themutual trust and confidenc


13/39

spouses are kept separate anddistinct from the benefits acquiredby them during the marriage.4. The exclusive properties of theparties will have to be identifiedand returned.

between the spouses and foneness and unity between4. Easier to liquidate becaunet remainder of the commproperties is just divided bethe spouses or their heirs.

Art. 107. The rules provided in Articles 88 and 89 shall also applyto conjugal partnership of gains.

Please see Articles 88 and 89

Art. 108. The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the ruleson the contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict withwhat is expressly determined in this Chapter or by the spouses

in their marriage settlements.

If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover liabilities,the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balancewith their separate properties.

Section 2. Exclusive Property of Each Spouse

Art. 109. The following shall be the exclusive property of eachspouse:

(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 thewife or of the husband.

Art. 110. The spouses retain the ownership, possession,administration and enjoyment of their exclusive properties.Either spouse may, during the marriage, transfer theadministration of his or her exclusive property to the other bymeans of a public instrument, which shall be recorded in theregistry of property of the place the property is located.

Transfer of administration over the separate property may bein public instrument, to the other spouse. It must also berecorded in the registry of property of the place where theproperty is located.

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate orotherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without theconsent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to litigatewith regard to the same.

Note that the other spouse does not need consent toalienate/encumber etc his or her exclusive property.

Art. 112. The alienation of any exclusive property of a spouseadministered by the other automatically terminates theadministration over such property and the proceeds of thealienation shall be turned over to the owner-spouse.

Once the owner-spouse has alienated the property, theadministration thereof by the owner spouse automaticallyterminates, and the proceeds of the alienation must beturned over to the owner-spouse

Art. 113. Property donated or left by will to the spouses, jointlyand with designation of determinate shares, shall pertain to thedonee-spouses as his or her own exclusive property, and in theabsence of designation, share and share alike, without prejudiceto the right of accretion when proper.

If a friend donates to a married couple a parcel of land, theland will not be conjugal, but separate p roperty ( for each).This is acquisition by gratuitous title. If a different proportionor designation of share is made, such will be followed.

Right of accretion takes place when either spouse:- refuses to accept- is incapacitated to accept


14/39

- predeceases or dies before the perfection of the donationArt. 114. If the donations are onerous, the amount of the chargesshall be borne by the exclusive property of the donee spouse,whenever they have been advanced by the conjugal partnershipof gains.

The property donated is still the exclusive property of thedonee spouse, but he or she has an obligation to reimbursethe amount advanced by the conjugal partnership for thecharges on the property at the time of liquidation of thepartnership.

Art. 115. Retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, gratuities,usufructs and similar benefits shall be governed by the rules ongratuitous or onerous acquisitions as may be proper in eachcase.

If they are gratuitous, they are the exclusive property of thespouses to whom they are given. If they are onerous, thensuch benefits are conjugal.

If the benefits are given by reason of payments from theconjugal property, these shall pertain to the conjugalpartnership like annuities or proceeds of insurance.

Section 3. Conjugal Partnership Property

Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether theacquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registeredin the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugalunless the contrary is proved.

The presumption is it is conjugal if the property is acquiredduring the marriage unless the contrary is proven (even if thetitle is under the name of the spouse solely)

Art. 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:

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

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

(3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or receivedduring the marriage from the common property, as well as the net

fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse;(4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the

law awards to the finder or owner of the property where thetreasure is found;

(5) Those acquired through occupation such as fishing orhunting;

(6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnershipin excess of the number of each kind brought to the marriage byeither spouse; and

(7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as winningsfrom gambling or betting. However, losses therefromshall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse.

Art. 118. Property bought on installments paid partly fromexclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly fromconjugal funds belongs to the buyer or buyers if full ownership

was vested before the marriage and to the conjugal partnership ifsuch ownership was vested during the marriage. In either case,any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or bothspouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners uponliquidation of the partnership.

This article applies to properties bought on installments bythe husband or wife before the marriage.

Note the need for reimbursement.

Ownership is transferred upon delivery of the property.Delivery may be actual, constructive, or may be made byexecution of legal instrument.

Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable w ithin a period oftime belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which may be

Example:Previous to her marriage, a wife lent a friend the sum of 10k payable


15/39

collected during the marriage in partial payments or byinstallments on the principal shall be the exclusive property ofthe spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage onthe principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership.

in ten years with interest of 6% per annum. Three years after the loanwas contracted, she got married. After 5 years of married life, themarriage was dissolved. The wife continued collecting for 2 years.Who owns the principal and the interest?

1. Regarding the principal and the interest for the first 3 years,the wife is the sole owner for she was not yet married.

2. As regards the principal for 5 years of married life, the wife isalso the owner. The law does not consider the installmentsdue during the marriage as fruits, and instead, considersthem as pertaining to the capital or to the paraphernalproperty of the wife. But the interest for 5 years of married life

belong to the conjugal partnership. The interest here isconsidered as fruits of the paraphernal property.3. The principal and interest during the last 2 years belongs

solely to the wife. The conjugal partnership has ceased toexist due to the dissolution of the marriage.

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

When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugalpartnership and any resulting increase in value are more than thevalue of the property at the time of the improvement, the entireproperty of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugalpartnership, 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 theowner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost ofthe improvement.

In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall bevested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the timeof the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

It is important to note which is bigger or greater:a.) The value of the property just before the improvement was

made, orb.) Its value after the improvement including the cose

If (a) is greater, the whole thing belongs to the owner-spouse, withoutprejudice to reimbursement of the conjugal partnership. If (b) isgreater, the whole thing belongs to the conjugal partnership but theowner-spouse must be reimbursed.

Ownership of the entire property (principal and improvement) vests on

the owner-spouse or the partnership, as the case may be, uponreimbursement of the improvement, which shall be made at the time ofthe liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

Art 121: The CP shall be liable for:(1) The supportof the spouse, their common children, and

legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support ofillegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions ofthis Code on Support;

(2) All debts and obligationscontracted during the marriage bythe designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the

conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or byone of them with the consent of the other;

(3) Debts and obligationscontracted by either spouse withoutthe consentof the other to the extent that the family mayhave been benefited;

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

(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during


16/39

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 debtsof either spouse insofar as they haveredounded to the benefit of the family;

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

(9) Expenses of litigationbetween the spousesunless thesuit is found to be groundless.

If the conjugal partnership is insufficientto cover the foregoingliabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaidbalance with their separate properties.Art 122:The payment ofpersonal debtscontracted by the husbandor the wife before or duringthe marriage shall not be chargedto theconjugal partnership except in so far as they redounded to thebenefit of the family.Neither shall fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed uponthembe charged to the partnership.However, the payment of personal debtscontracted by either spousebefore the marriage, that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them,as well as the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may beenforced against the partnership assetsafter the responsibilitiesenumerated in the preceding Article have been covered, if the spousewho is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should beinsufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of the partnership,

such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for theabove-mentioned.

What shall not be charged against the CPG:(1) Debts incurred (before or during the marriage) except in so

far as they benefitted the family(2) Fines and pecuniary indemnities

However, if the separate property is insufficient, the conjugalpartnership property shall be liable, subject to two conditions:

(1) The obligations of and charges upon the CP shall have beencovered;

There must be reimbursement during liquidation

Art 123: Whatever may be lostduring the marriage in any game ofchance, or in betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind of gamblingwhether permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser andshallnot be charged to the conjugal partnershipbut any winningstherefrom shall form part of the conjugal partnership of property.

(Same with ACP, see Art 95)Art 124: The administration and enjoyment of the conjugalpartnership of property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case ofdisagreement, the husbands decision shall prevail, subject torecourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which mustbe availed of within five years from the date of the contractimplementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable toparticipate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the otherspouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers donot include disposition or encumbrance without the authority of thecourtor the written consent of the other spouse. In the absenceofsuch authority or consent the disposition or encumbrance shall bevoid. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing

Art 125: Neither spouse may donateany conjugal partnershipproperty without the consent of the other. However, either spousemay, without the consent of the other, make moderate donationsfrom the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions offamily rejoicing or family distress.(Same with ACP, see Art 98.)

Art 126: The conjugal partnership terminates:(1) Upon the deathof either spouse;(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or(4) In case ofjudicial separation of propertyduring the

marriage under Art 134 to 138(Same with ACP, see Art 99.)


17/39

offer on the part of the consenting spouseand the third person,and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance bythe other spouseor authorization by the court before the offer iswithdrawn by either or both offerors.(Same with ACP, Art 96.)

Note: in case of conflict---husband prevails, but wife has judicialredresswithin 5 years from the date of t he contract implementing thehusbands decision.

Art 127: The separation in fact between husband and wife shall notaffect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that:

(1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live

therein, without just cause, shall have no right to besupported;(2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the

other is required by law,judicial authorizationshall beobtained in a summary proceeding; (this means that in caseswhen consent of the absent spouse is necessary, a judicialauthorization instead will be secured by the spouse present)

(3) In the absence of sufficient conjugal partnership property, theseparate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable forthe support of the family. The spouse present shall, uponpetition in a summary proceeding, be given judicialauthority to administer or encumber any specificseparate property of the other spouse and use the fruitsor proceeds thereof to satisfy the latters share.

(Same with ACP, see Art 100.)

Art 128: If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails tocomply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spousemay petition the court for receivership, forjudicial separation of

property, or for the authority to be the sole administrator of theconjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionaryconditions as the court may impose.

The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraphrefer to marital, parental, or property relations.

A spouse is deemed to have abandonedthe other when he or shehas left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. Thespouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of threemonths or has failed within the same period to give anyinformation as to his or her whereaboutsshall be prima faciepresumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling.(Same with ACP, see Art 101.)

Art 129: Upon the dissolution of theconjugal partnership regimfollowing procedure shall apply:

(1) An inventoryshall be prepared, listing separately all t

properties of the conjugal partnership and the exclusivproperties of each spouse.(2) Amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership in

payment of personal debts and obligationsof eithespouse shall be credited to the conjugal partnershiasset thereof.(NOT PRESENT IN ACP, ART 102)

(3) Each spouse shall be reimbursedfor the use of his oexclusive fundsin the acquisition of property or for thvalue of his or her exclusive property, the ownership ohas been vested by law in the conjugal partnership (NPRESENT IN ACP, ART 102)

(4) The debts and obligations of the conjugal partnersshall be paid out of the conjugal assets. In case ofinsufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidliable for the unpaid balance with their separateproperties, in accordance with the provisions of parag

(2) of Article 121.(5) Whatever remainsof the exclusive properties of thespouses shall thereafter be delivered to eachof them

(6) Unless the owner had been indemnified from whatevesource, the loss or deterioration of movables used benefit of the family belonging to either spouse , evto fortuitous event, shall be paid to said spouse fromconjugal funds, if any. (NOT PRESENT IN ACP, ART

(7) The net remainderof the conjugal partnership propershall constitute the profitswhich shall be divided equbetween husband and wife unless a different propordivision was agreed upon in the marriage settlemeunless there has been a voluntary waiver or forfeitsuch share as provided in this Code.

(8) The presumptive legitimes of the common childrenbe delivered upon partition in accordance with Article 5

(9) In partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling andon which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed uthe parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whommajority of the common children choose to remainChildren below the age of seven years are deemed tchosen the mother, unless the court has decided othIn case there is no such majority, the court shall decitaking into consideration the best interests of said child


18/39

Art 130: Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugalpartnership property, shall be liquidatedin the same proceedingforthe settlement of the estate of the deceased .

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouseshall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judiciallyor extrajudicially within six monthsfrom the death of the deceasedspouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation ismade, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugalpartnership propertyof the terminated marriage shall be void.

Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriagewithout compliancewith the foregoing requirements, a mandatoryregime of complete separation of propertyshall govern theproperty relations of the subsequent marriage.(Same with ACP, see Art 103).

Art 131: Whenever the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of two ormore marriages contracted by the same person during the effectivityof this Code is carried our simultaneously, the respective capital, fruitsand income of each partnership shall be determined upon such proofas may be considered according to the rules of evidence. Incase of doubt as to which partnership the existing properties being,the same shall be divided between the different partnerships inproportion to the capital and duration of each.

Art 132: The Rules of Court on the administration of estates ofdeceased persons shall be observed in the appraisal and sale oproperty of the conjugal partnership, and other matters which aexpressly determined in this Chapter.

Art 133: From the common mass of property support shall be given tothe surviving spouse and to the children during t he liquidation of theinventoried property and until what belongs to them is delivered; butfrom this shall be deducted that amount received for support whichexceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them. Ayala Investment V CA (feb. 12, 1998)

Facts:Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching a re married couple. Alfredo isan executive of Phil. Blooming mills He is also a stockholder as aconsequence of his job. PBM contracted a loan to AIDC hereinpetitioner and along with that loan is a surety made by Alfredo thathed be jointly and severally liable. Upon default of PBM to pay its

obligation, AIDC then moved for the execution of real property of PBMand thereafter also 3 real properties of the spouses Ching.

Issue: Whether or not the properties under conjugal partnership ofgains be levied to satisfy the liability arising from surety contract madeby one spouse alone?

Rulling: (A) If the husband himself is the principal obligor in thecontract, i.e., he directly received the money and services to be usedin or for his own business or his own profession, that contract falls

within the term . . . . obligations for the benefit of the conjugalpartnership." Here, no actual benefit may be p roved. It is enough thatthe benefit to the family is apparent at the time of the signing of thecontract. From the very nature of the contract of loan or services, thefamily stands to benefit from the loan facility or services to berendered to the business or profession of the husband. It isimmaterial, if in the end, his business or profession fails or does notsucceed. Simply stated, where the husband contracts obligations onbehalf of the family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, thatsuch obligation will redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.(B) On the other hand, if the money or services are given to anotherperson or entity, and the husband acted only as a suretyor guarantor,that contract cannot, by itself, alone be ca tegorized as falling withinthe context of "obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership."The contract of loan or services is clearly for the benefit of theprincipal debtor and not for the surety or his family. No presumption

can be inferred that, when a husband enters into a contract of suretyor accommodation agreement, it is "for the benefit of the conjugalpartnership." Proof must be presented to establish bene fit redoundingto the conjugal partnership.

Thus, the distinction between the Cobb-Perez case, and we adof the three other companion cases, on the one hand, and that Ansaldo, Liberty Insurance and Luzon Surety, is that in the formhusband contracted the obligation for his own business; while inlatter, the husband merely acted as a surety for the loan contraanother for the latter's business.The evidence of petitioner indubitably show that co-respondent

Ching signed as surety for the P50M loan contracted on behalf PBM.

Here, the property in dispute also involves the family home. Theis a corporate loan not a personal one. Signing as a surety is cenot an exercise of an industry or profession nor an act ofadministration for the benefit of the family.

CHING V. CA On Sep 28, 1978, Philippine Blooming mills (PBMCI) obtained a 9-million peso load from Allied banking corporation. For security, Alfredo Issue:WON the argument of Mrs Ching is tenable.


19/39

Ching and 2 other persons executed a continuing guaranty bindingthemselves to jointly and severally guarantee the payment of all thePBMCI obligations owing the ABC to the extent of 38 million pesos.PBMCI defaulted in the payment which amounted to 12,612,972.88pesos. After the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, thesheriff then levied the 100,000 common shares of CityCorp stocksregistered solely in the name of Alfredo Ching. The wife of Mr. Chingthen moved to set aside the levy on attachment claiming that thestocks were acquired by her and her husband during the marriage outof conjugal funds. Furthermore, the indebtedness did not redound tothe benefit of the conjugal partnership.

Held:The barefaced fact that the shares of stocks were registered incorporate books of citycorp investment solely in the name of Aldoes not constitute proof that the husband, not the conjugalpartnership, owned the same. It was the burden of ABC to provHowever, ABC failed to adduce evidence to prove this assertionFor the conjugal partnership to be liable for a liability that shoulappertain to the husband alone, there must be a showing that sadvantages accrued to the spouses. No presumption can be inthat when a husband entered into a contract of surety, the conjupartnership would thereby be benefited.Also, the benefits contemplated must be those directly resultingthe loan. They cannot merely a by-product or a spin-off of the loitself.

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINSFRANCISCO vs GONZALES

FRANCISCO VS GONZALES GR 177667

After securing a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Cleodualdo andMichele have voluntarily agreed to set forth their obligations, rightsand responsibilities on matters relating to their children's support,custody, visitation, as well as to the dissolution of their conjugalpartnership of gains in a compromise agreement.

Ownership of the conjugal property consisting of a house and lotcovered by TCT in the name of Cleodualdo M. Francisco, married toMichele U. Francisco shall be transferred by way of a deed ofdonation to Cleodia and Ceamantha, as co -owners, when they reachnineteen (19) and eighteen (18) years old.

Respondent ordered Michele and her partner Matrai to vacate thepremises at LANGKA Drive, which was leased to them and to payback rentals, unpaid telephone bill, and attorney's fees.

A notice of sale was issued covering the property donated to thechildren(Taal St.).

RTC denied the MR filed by Petitioners Grandmother as guardian -in-fact of the children

CA DECISION: Michele's obligation was not proven to be a personaldebt, it must be inferred that it is conjugal and redounded to thebenefit of the family, and hence, the property may be held answerablefor it.

ISSUE : W the conjugal property of the former spouses may beheld accountable?

RATIO: NO. The power of the court in executing judgments extonly to propertiesunquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone, inpresent case to those belonging to Michele and Matrai. *Cleoduand Michele, having married prior to the effectivity of t he FC thuproperty relation is governed by the Civil Code on conjugal partof gains.

A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she-purchthings necessary for the support of the family- when she borrowmoney for that purpose upon her husband's failure to deliver th

needed sum-when administration of the conjugal partnership istransferred to the wife by the courts or by the husband-or whenwife gives moderate donations for charity.

In this case as the liability incurred by Michele arose from a judrendered in an unlawful detainer case against her and her partnMatrai. Michele, who was then already living separately fromCleodualdo rented the house in Lanka Drive for her and Matraibenefit. In fact, when they entered into the lease agreement, Mand Matrai purported themselves to be husband and wife.

Both Michele and Cleodualdo have waived their title to and ownof the house and lot in Taal St. in favor of petitioners. The propeshould not have been levied and sold at execution sale, for lacklegal basis.

ROBERTO AND VENUS BUADO VS COURT OF APPEALS ANDROMULO NICOL FACTS: Mr. and Mrs. Buado filed a civil case against Erlinda Nicol. On April 1987, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Erlinda

to pay damages to the petitioners.

The personal properties of Erlinda were insufficient to pay thedamages.

The sheriff levied and auctioned the property of Erlinda.

ISSUE:ISSUE: Whether or not the obligation of Erlinda Nicol arising frocriminal liability is chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

HELD: NO. Erlinda Nicols liability is not chargeable to the conjpartnership.


20/39

An auction sale was held with the petitioners as the highest bidder.A certificate of sale was issued in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Buado.

After almost one year, the husband of Erlinda, Romulo Nicol, fileda complaint for the annulment of certificate of sale and damageswith preliminary injunction against petitioners and deputy sheriff.

He argued that there was no proper publication and posting for theauction sale. He also claimed that the judgment obligation ofErlinda Nicol amounted to P40,000 only. The spouses Buadoobtained the P500,000 worth of property for only P51,685.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and heldthat Branch 21 has jurisdiction to act on the complaint filed by the

respondent in this case. The petitioners filed a petition where they said that the Court of

Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion for reversing thedecision given by the RTC.

Unlike in the system of absolute community where liabilities incby either spouse by reason of a crime o r quasi-delict is chargeathe absolute community of property, in the absence or insufficiethe exclusive property of the debtor- spouse, the same advantanot accorded in the system of conjugal partnership of gains. Thconjugal partnership of gains has no duty to make advance payfor the liability of the debtor-spouse.

Petitioners argue that the obligation of the wife arising from hercriminal liability is chargeable to the conjugal partnership. TheSupreme Court does not agree to the contention of Mr. and MrsBuado.

In Guadalupe v. Tronco, this Court held that the car which wasclaimed by the third party complainant to be conjugal property wbeing levied upon to enforce "a judgment for support" filed by aperson, the third-party claim of the wife is proper since the obligwhich is personal to the husband is chargeable not on the conjuproperty but on his separate property. Hence, the filing of a sepaction by Romulo Nicol was proper.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmedMatthews v. Taylor (2009) On June 30, 1988, respondent Benjamin A. Taylor (Benjamin), a

British subject, married Joselyn C. Taylor (Joselyn), a 17-year oldFilipina. On June 9, 1989, while their marriage was subsisting, Joselynbought from Diosa M. Martin a 1,294 square-meter lot (Boracayproperty) situated at Manoc-Manoc, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan, forand in consideration of P129,000.00. The sale was allegedly financed

by Benjamin. Joselyn and Benjamin, also using the latters funds,constructed improvements thereon and eventually converted theproperty to a vacation and tourist resort known as the Admiral BenBow Inn. All required permits and licenses for the operation of theresort were obtained in the name of Ginna Celestino, Joselyns sister.However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out, and Joselyn ranaway with Kim Philippsen. On June 8, 1992, Joselyn executed aSpecial Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Benjamin, authorizing thelatter to maintain, sell, lease, and sub-lease and otherwise enter intocontract with third parties with respect to their Boracay property. OnJuly 20, 1992, Joselyn as lessor and petitioner Philip Matthews aslessee, entered into an Agreement of Lease (Agreement) involving theBoracay property for a period of 25 years, with an annual rental ofP12,000.00. The agreement was signed by the parties and executedbefore a Notary Public. Petitioner thereafter took possession of theproperty and renamed the resort as Music Garden Resort. Claiming

that the Agreement was null and void since it was entered into byJoselyn without his (Benjamins) consent, Benjamin instituted anaction for Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of Lease with Damagesagainst Joselyn and the petitioner. Benjamin claimed that his fundswere used in the acquisition and improvement of the Boracayproperty, and coupled with the fact that he was Joselyns husband,any transaction involving said property required his consent.

Issue:Can an alien husband nullify a lease contract entered his Filipina wife bought during their marriage? No.

SC:The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are absolutely not to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines, save constitutionally recognized exceptions. There is no rule more

than this constitutional prohibition, as more and more aliens attcircumvent the provision by trying to own lands through anothe

Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of Lease bJoselyn and petitioner. Benjamin, being an alien, is abprohibited from acquiring private and public lands in the PhilConsidering that Joselyn appeared to be the designated venthe Deed of Sale of said property, she acquired sole owthereto. This is true even if we sustain Benjamins claim provided the funds for such acquisition. By entering into such cknowing that it was illegal, no implied trust was created in his fareimbursement for his expenses can be allowed; and no deccan be made that the subject property was part conjugal/community property of the spouses. In any event, he hhas no capacity or personality to question the subsequent leasBoracay property by his wife on the theory that in so doing,

merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of cproperty. To sustain such a theory would countenance controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If the property wbe declared conjugal, this would accord the alien hussubstantial interest and right over the land, as he would thendecisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right Constitution does not permit him to have.


21/39

PANA V. HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE, SR. AND JOSE JUANITE, JR.DECEMBER 10, 2012

The prosecution accused Efren Pana, his wife Melencia, and others ofmurder before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, and eventuallya decision was rendered acquitting Efren of the charge forinsufficiency of evidence but finding Melencia and another personguilty as charged and was sentenced to death. The Supreme Courtaffirmed RTCs decision but modified the penalty to ReclusionPerpetua. As for the monetary awards, the court affirmed the award ofcivil indemnity and moral damages but deleted the award for actualdamages for lack of evidentiary basis. In its place the court made anaward of php15, 000 each by way of temperate damages. In addition,the court awarded Php50, 000.00 exemplary damages per victim to bepaid solidarily by them. The decision became executory of October 1,2001. Upon motion for execution by the heirs of the deceased, theRTC ordered the issuance of the writ resulting in the levy of realproperties registered in the names of Efren and Melencia.

Subsequently, a notice of levy and a notice of sale on execution wereissued. On April 3, 2002, Efren and his wife Melecia filed a motion toquash the writ of execution claiming that the properties levied wereconjugal assets and not paraphernal of Melecia. On September 16,2002, the RTC denied the motion. The spouses moved forreconsideration but the RTC denied the same. In this case, it issubmitted that Efren and Melencia were married when the Civil Codewas still in effect. They did not execute a pre-nuptial agreement,hence CPG governed their property relations. However, both RTC andCA held that property regime changed into ACP when family code tookeffect it reason out that Art. 256 of the Family Code provides that theCode shall have retroactive effect in so far as it does not prejudice orimpair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code orother laws. Both the RTC and the Court of the Appeals are in error onthis point. While it is true that the personal stakes of each spouses intheir conjugal assets are inchoate or unclear prior to the liquidation ofthe conjugal partnership of hains and, therefore none of them can besaid to have acquired vested rights in specific assets , it is evident thatArticle 256 of the Family Code does not intend to reac back andautomatically convert into absolute community of property relations allconjugal partnership of gains that existed before 1988 excepting onlythose with prenuptial agreements.

ISSUE:Whether or not the conjugal properties of spouses EfreMelencia can be levied and executed upon for the satisfaction oMelencias civil liability in the aforesaid murder case.

HELD:YES, provided that the conditions under Article 121 of thFamily Code have been covered.First of all, the Supreme Court explained that it is clear from thethat Efren and Melencia were married when the Civil code was operative law on marriages. The presumption, absent any evidthe contrary, is

Documents

Persons Reviewer Comprehensive