Spouses X and Y filed an action for ejectment against A, with whom X (husband of Y) had

cohabited for several years. Defendant A contended that she cannot be ejected since X has
the obligation to support her and their children. Assuming there is such obligation to provide
support, will it prevail over the action for ejectment?
The SC held in the negative. In TUMLOS vs. SPOUSES FERNANDEZ, the SC
declared: petitioner contends that since Respondent Mario Fernandez failed to repudiate her claim
regarding the filiation of his alleged sons, Mark Gil and Michael Fernandez, his silence on the
matter amounts to an admission. Arguing that Mario is liable for support, she advances the theory
that the children’s right to support, which necessarily includes shelter, prevails over the right of
respondents to eject her.
We disagree. It should be emphasized that this is an ejectment suit whereby respondents seek to
exercise their possessory right over their property. It is summary in character and deals solely with
the issue of possession of the property in dispute. Here, it has been shown that they have a better
right to possess it than does the petitioner, whose right to possess is based merely on their tolerance.
Moreover, Respondent Mario Fernandez’ alleged failure to repudiate petitioner’s claim
of filiation is not relevant to the present case. Indeed, it would be highly improper for us to rule on
such issue. Besides, it was not properly taken up below. In any event, Article 298 of the Civil
Code requires that there should be an extrajudicial demand. None was made here

Administration of properties is not considered actual contribution for purposes of applying

Art. 148.
In TUMLOS vs. SPOUSES FERNANDEZ [G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000], the SC held
that “petitioner fails to present any evidence that she had made an actual contribution to purchase
the subject property. Indeed, she anchors her claim of co-ownership merely on her cohabitation
with Respondent Mario Fernandez.
Likewise, her claim of having administered the property during the cohabitation is unsubstantiated.
In any event, this fact by itself does not justify her claim, for nothing in Article 148 of the Family
Code provides that the administration of the property amounts to a contribution in its acquisition.
Clearly, there is no basis for petitioner’s claim of co-ownership. The property in question belongs
to the conjugal partnership of respondents. Hence, the MTC and the CA were correct in ordering
the ejectment of petitioner from the premises.

Under Art. 148, proof of actual contribution is needed. [SAGUID vs.HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 94, BOAC, MARINDUQUE
AND GINA S. REY, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003
In the cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v. Fernandez, which involved the issue of co-
ownership of properties acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage and an adulterous
relationship, respectively, we ruled that proof of actual contribution in the acquisition of the
property is essential. The claim of co-ownership of the petitioners therein who were parties to the
bigamous and adulterous union is without basis because they failed to substantiate their all

1
egation that they contributed money in the purchase of the disputed properties. Also in Adriano v.
Court of Appeals, we ruled that the fact that the controverted property was titled in the name of
the parties to an adulterous relationship is not sufficient proof of co-ownership absent evidence of
actual contribution in the acquisition of the property.

LUPO ATIENZA vs. YOLANDA DE CASTRO, G.R. No. 169698, November 29, 2006
What are the kinds of cohabitations that the law consider outside the application of Art. 147?
In Atienza v. Castro, the SC held: Article 148 of the Family Code x x x applies to bigamous
marriages, adulterous relationships, 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. Under this regime, …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. Proof of actual contribution is required.
Regime of Limited Co-ownership: Marriages outside of Art. 47 (Atienza v. Castro)
Application of RLC: applies to properties acquired during said cohabitation in proportion to their
respective contributions. Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the proven actual
contribution of money, property or industry. Absent proof of the extent thereof, their contributions
and corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal. (Atienza v. Castro)
When properties are purchased from earnings of one of the parties, such property is not co-owned.

ALAIN M. DIÑO vs. MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO, . G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011
Wife instituted an action for nullity of marriage against her husband on the ground of psychological
incapacity. The RTC favorably resolved the petition but held that the decree of nullity will be
issued only after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147
of the Family Code. Is there a need for prior liquidation, etc before decree of nullity be issued?
No. Prior liquidation, etc. is required only in the event the marriage is voided or annulled under
Arts. 40 and 45 of the FC where the marriage is covered either by ACP or CPG. In
DIÑO vs. DIÑO, the SC held:
Article 40 of the Family Code contemplates a situation where a second or bigamous marriage was
contracted. Under Article 40, “[t]he absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage
void.”
Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning, marriages
which are valid until they are set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for
annulment. In both instances under Articles 40 and 45, the marriages are governed either by
absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains unless the parties agree to a
complete separation of property in a marriage settlement entered into before the marriage. Since
the property relations of the parties is governed by absolute community of property or conjugal
partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a

2
decree of annulment could be issued. That is not the case for annulment of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code because the marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.

How partition is executed: SPOUSES SALGADO vs. LUIS G. ANSON, G.R. No. 204494,
July 27, 2016
Accordingly, the provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code shall apply in the partition of
the properties co-owned by Luis and Severina. It is stated under Article 1079 of the Civil Code
that “partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common
among those to whom it may belong. The thing itself may be divided, or its value.” As to how
partition may be validly done, Article 496 of the Civil Code is precise that “partition may be made
by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings x x x.” The law does not impose a
judicial approval for the agreement to be valid. Hence, even without the same, the partition was
validly done by Luis and Severina through the execution of the Partition Agreement.

BARRIDO vs. NONATO, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014:

For Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be capacitated to marry each other;
(2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union is without the benefit
of marriage or their marriage is void. X x x The term “capacitated” in the first paragraph of the
provision pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage.
Void marriages under Art. 36 are covered.

Efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to
the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry.

H and W, husband and wife, got married in 1963. H sold a parcel of land to B, without the
knowledge and consent of W. W filed an action to nullify the sale, claiming that the asset is
presumed to be conjugal and thus cannot be sold without her consent. As evidence that the
land is conjugal, she presented a 1974 Tax Declaration over the land issued in the name of
H, arguing that it is evidence that the land is presumed conjugal. Is W correct?
No, W is not correct. The presumption that an asset is conjugal applies only when it is previously
established that the same was purchased during the subsistence of the marriage. Here, there is no
showing that the land was purchased during the marriage. The tax declaration issued in 1974 is not
sufficient evidence to prove that the property was in fact bought between 1963 and 1974. [Pintiano-
Anno v. Anno, G.R. No. 163743, January 27, 2006]

S1 and S2, sisters, purchased 2 parcels of land, Lot 1 and Lot 2, in the total amount of Php
1, 000, 000.00. S2 contributed Php300, 000.00 on the understanding that she will be getting
Lot 2. The Deed of Sale was executed solely in the name of S1 and title over said lots were
issued also in the name of S1. However, S1 and S2 executed a side agreement that S2 will
occupy Lot 2, valued at Php450, 000.00, and title over the same will be transferred to her
after she had paid fully the balance of Php 150, 000.00. When S2 attempted to pay the

3
balance, S1 refused to receive claiming that the agreement is not valid since it was executed
without the consent of her husband, citing Art. 124 of the FC. Is S1 correct?
No, Art. 124 of the FC will not apply “because the transaction between Florinda and Leonila in
reality did not involve any disposition of property belonging to any of the sisters’ conjugal assets.”
[Spouses De la Cruz v. Spouses Sevovia, G.R. No. 149801, June 26, 2008] In this said case, the
SC also noted that the husband of S1 “by his actuations, agreed and gave his conformity to the
Agreement. As found by the courts below, Renato’s consent to the Agreement was drawn from
the fact that he was present at the time it was signed by the sisters and their witnesses; he had
knowledge of the Agreement as it was presented to him for his signature, although he did not sign
the same because his wife Florinda insisted that her signature already carried that of her husband.”

ABC Enterprises, a sole proprietorship, and X entered into a contract of lease of a vehicle.
ABC is registered in the name of W, married to H. When X failed to pay his obligations
under the lease contract, W filed an action to recover the leased vehicle. X moved to dismiss
on the ground that W is not the proper party since she was not joined by her husband H in
the filing of the case. Is X correct.
No. X is not correct.
In Navarro v. Escobido, et al.[G.R. No.153788, November 27, 2009], citing Carandang v. Heirs
of De Guzman it was established that “in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties
in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, any one
of them may bring an action, any kind of action, for the recovery of co-owned properties.
Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery
of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not
indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be accorded
in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the
benefit of all co-owners.”

Is there an instance where a CPG asset may be held liable for the obligation incurred by one
spouse without the consent of the other spouse?
Yes. Article 121, par. 3 of the FC Family Code provides that the conjugal partnership shall be
liable for debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the
extent that the family may have been benefited. In Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo,
the SC ruled “For the subject property to be held liable, the obligation contracted by the late
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. There must
be the requisite showing then of some advantage which clearly accrued to the welfare of the
spouses. Certainly, to make a conjugal partnership respond for a liability that should appertain to
the husband alone is to defeat and frustrate the avowed objective of the new Civil Code to show
the utmost concern for the solidarity and well-being of the family as a unit.”

4
If you are the counsel of the mortagee, what will you do?
I will demand the reimbursement or redemption price of the mortgaged asset plus 6% interest per
annum. Alinas, again citing an older case, provides the direction when the SC opined that “herein
petitioners should reimburse respondent spouses the redemption price plus interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, and after the judgment becomes final and
executory, the amount due shall earn 12% interest per annum until the obligation is satisfied.”

Can the mortgagee claim that he had already acquired a vested right over the mortgaged
property?
No. The mortgagee cannot raise that as a defense since at the time of the execution of the mortgage,
he knew that the subject property belongs to the CPG.In Spouses Alinas v. Spouses Alinas [G.R.
No. 158040, April 14, 2008], citing Heirs of Aguilar-Reyes v. Spouses Mijares, held that “a
purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard and still
claim he acted in good faith.”[23] Such being the case, no injustice is being foisted on respondent
spouses as they risked transacting with Onesiforo alone despite their knowledge that the subject
property is a conjugal property.”

May the CPG under the FC be given application to existing CPGs prior to the law’s
effectivity?
Yes. With the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, Chapter 4 on Conjugal
Partnership of Gains in the Family Code was made applicable to conjugal partnership of gains
already established before its effectivity unless vested rights have already been acquired under the
Civil Code or other laws. (Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo)

X married his wife, Y, before is the effectivity of the Family Code. In 2000, X mortgaged a
conjugal asset to B, without the knowledge and consent of Y. B knew that the mortgaged
asset belongs to the CPG. Y assailed the mortgage as null and void. X and B contended that
the sale is valid since their conjugal partnership is governed by the rules on co-ownership.
They cited ART. 493 of the Civil Code which provides that “each co-owner shall have the
full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment,
except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage,
with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in
the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.” Are X and B correct?
No, X and B are not correct. The governing law in CPG is the FC and suppletorily by the rules on
partnership. In Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo, G. R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005,
the SC declared:
In Guiang v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the sale of a conjugal property requires the consent
of both the husband and wife. In applying Article 124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that
the absence of the consent of one renders the entire sale null and void, including the portion of the
conjugal property pertaining to the husband who contracted the sale. The same principle

5
in Guiang squarely applies to the instant case. As shall be discussed next, there is no legal basis to
construe Article 493 of the Civil Code as an exception to Article 124 of the Family Code.
xxx
The rules on co-ownership do not even apply to the property relations of respondent and the late
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. even in a suppletory manner. The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is
a special type of partnership, where the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds,
products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both
spouses through their efforts or by chance. Unlike the absolute community of property wherein
the rules on co-ownership apply in a suppletory manner, the conjugal partnership shall be governed
by the rules on contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is expressly determined
in the chapter (on conjugal partnership of gains) or by the spouses in their marriage
settlements. Thus, the property relations of respondent and her late husband shall be governed,
foremost, by Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of the Family Code and, suppletorily,
by the rules on partnership under the Civil Code. In case of conflict, the former prevails because
the Civil Code provisions on partnership apply only when the Family Code is silent on the matter

Rule on the extent of the liability of ACP and CPG to the civil liability of the spouses arising
from criminal acts.
In Spouses Buado v. CA, the SC held:
There is no dispute that contested property is conjugal in nature. Article 122 of the Family
Code[16] explicitly provides that payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife
before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as
they redounded to the benefit of the family.

Unlike in the system of absolute community where liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason
of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable to the absolute community of property, in the absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the same advantage is not accorded
in the system of conjugal partnership of gains. The conjugal partnership of gains has no duty to
make advance payments for the liability of the debtor-spouse.

Parenthetically, by no stretch of imagination can it be concluded that the civil obligation arising
from the crime of slander committed by Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.

To reiterate, conjugal property cannot be held liable for the personal obligation contracted by one
spouse, unless some advantage or benefit is shown to have accrued to the conjugal partnership.

H’s wife, W, was held civilly liable on account of her slanderous act. X, the complainant, thru
the sheriff, after a finding that the exclusive properties of W is not enough to cover the
judgment obligation, proceeded to levy the assets of the conjugal partnership of H and W. H
objected to no avail. Within one year from the sale, H filed an action to annul the public

6
auction sale. X countered that H cannot file the action and the court has no jurisdiction over
the case since H is not a stranger, he being the husband of W. Is X’s contention correct?
No, X is not correct. In Spouses Buado v. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 145222, April 24, 2009], the SC
held:
In determining whether the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be
taken into account. In Mariano v. Court of Appeals,[11] which was later adopted in Spouses Ching
v. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court held that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed
a “stranger” to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has
redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.[13] On the other hand, in Naguit v. Court of
Appeals[14] and Sy v. Discaya,[15] the Court stated that a spouse is deemed a stranger to the action
wherein the writ of execution was issued and is therefore justified in bringing an independent
action to vindicate her right of ownership over his exclusive or paraphernal property.

Pursuant to Mariano however, it must further be settled whether the obligation of the judgment
debtor redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership or not.

Petitioners argue that the obligation of the wife arising from her criminal liability is chargeable to
the conjugal partnership. We do not agree.

There is no dispute that contested property is conjugal in nature. Article 122 of the Family
Code[16] explicitly provides that payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife
before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as
they redounded to the benefit of the family.

Unlike in the system of absolute community where liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason
of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable to the absolute community of property, in the absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the same advantage is not accorded
in the system of conjugal partnership of gains. The conjugal partnership of gains has no duty to
make advance payments for the liability of the debtor-spouse.

Parenthetically, by no stretch of imagination can it be concluded that the civil obligation arising
from the crime of slander committed by Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.

To reiterate, conjugal property cannot be held liable for the personal obligation contracted by one
spouse, unless some advantage or benefit is shown to have accrued to the conjugal partnership.[17]

In Guadalupe v. Tronco,[18] this Court held that the car which was claimed by the third party
complainant to be conjugal property was being levied upon to enforce “a judgment for support”
filed by a third person, the third-party claim of the wife is proper since the obligation which is
personal to the husband is chargeable not on the conjugal property but on his separate property.

7
May common-law spouses sell property to each other?
No, the prohibition to sell properties between spouses extends to common-law relationships.
In CHING VS. GOYANKO, JR., et al. [G.R. No. 165879, November 10, 2006],
citing Calimlim-Canullas v. Hon. Fortun, etc., et al, the SC held that “Anent the second issue, we
find that the contract of sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The
sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his family and
left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from when they derived their
support. The sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects.”

May spouses sell property to each other?

No. Article 1490 prohibit this sale between the spouses when it provides that “the husband and
wife cannot sell property to each other, except: (1) When a separation of property was agreed upon
in the marriage settlements; or (2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under
Article 191.

Property Regimes of Union Without Marriage

Rules when there is no marriage between parties with capacity or when marriage is void:
1. 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. (Art. 147)
2. 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;
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. In a void marriage, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be
forfeited in favor of:
a. common children
b. 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
c. 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.
Rules when cohabitation is not covered by Art. 147, e.g. when cohabiting parties do have
legal capacity to marry each other

8
 1. 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.
2. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are
presumed to be equal.
3. If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall
accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid
marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her
shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
4. Above rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.

Separation of Property: Takes place only when agreed in the marriage settlements or by
judicial order.
Grounds for judicial SP: (1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty
which carries with it civil interdiction; (2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially
declared an absentee; (3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been
decreed by the court; (4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or failed to
comply with his or her obligations to the family as provided for in Article 101; (5) That the spouse
granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements has abused that power; and (6)
That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least one year and
reconciliation is highly improbable.
In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2) and (3), the presentation of the final judgment against
the guilty or absent spouse shall be enough basis for the grant of the decree of judicial separation
of property. (191a)
Revival of Prior Property Regime: The spouses may, in the same proceedings where separation
of property was decreed, file a motion in court for a decree reviving the property regime that
existed between them before the separation of property in any of the following instances: (1) When
the civil interdiction terminates; (2) When the absentee spouse reappears; (3) When the court,
being satisfied that the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements will
not again abuse that power, authorizes the resumption of said administration; (4) When the spouse
who has left the conjugal home without a decree of legal separation resumes common life with the
other; (5) When parental authority is judicially restored to the spouse previously deprived thereof;
(6) When the spouses who have separated in fact for at least one year, reconcile and resume
common life; or (7) When after voluntary dissolution of the absolute community of property or
conjugal partnership has been judicially decreed upon the joint petition of the spouses, they agree
to the revival of the former property regime. No voluntary separation of property may thereafter
be granted.
Grounds for transfer of administration of exclusive property: The administration of all classes
of exclusive property of either spouse may be transferred by the court to the other spouse: (1)
When one spouse becomes the guardian of the other; (2) When one spouse is judicially declared
an absentee; (3) When one spouse is sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction;

9
or (4) When one spouse becomes a fugitive from justice or is in hiding as an accused in a criminal
case. Art. 142.
When SP is agreed in the marriage settlements
Properties covered: Separation of property may refer to present or future property or both. It may
be total or partial. In the latter case, the property not agreed upon as separate shall pertain to the
absolute community.
Right to administer: Each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or her
own separate estate, without need of the consent of the other. To each spouse shall belong all
earnings from his or her profession, business or industry and all fruits, natural, industrial or civil,
due or received during the marriage from his or her separate property. Art. 145
Rule on contribution to family expenses: Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in
proportion to their income, or, in case of insufficiency or default thereof, to the current market
value of their separate properties.
Rule on liability of the spouses to creditors for family expenses: solidary

Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Properties Covered: husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and
income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their
efforts or by chance. Art. 106
Examples of covered properties: Art. 117 considers the following as conjugal partnership
properties:
1. Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund,
whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;
2. Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses;
3. The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the
common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse;
4. The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the finder or
owner of the property where the treasure is found;
5. Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;
6. Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the number of each
kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and
7. Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or betting. However,
losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse.
Start: at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated, and any stipulation for the
commencement of the community regime at any other time is void. Art. 88
Rule on Waiver: No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolute community of property
during the marriage can be made except in case of judicial separation of property. Art. 89

10
Excluded/Exclusive Properties: Art. 109 enumerates the exclusive properties of each spouse as
follows: (1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own; (2) That which each acquires
during the marriage by gratuitous title; (3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter
or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the spouses; and (4) That which is
purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband.
Note that “property donated or left by will to the spouses, jointly and with designation of
determinate shares, shall pertain to the donee-spouses as his or her own exclusive property, and in
the absence of designation, share and share alike, without prejudice to the right of accretion when
proper.” Art. 113
Rights of Spouse to his/her exclusive properties: The spouses retain the ownership, possession,
administration and enjoyment of their exclusive properties; either spouse may, during the
marriage, transfer the administration of his or her exclusive property to the other by means of a
public instrument, which shall be recorded in the registry of property of the place the property is
located; a spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her
exclusive property, without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to litigate
with regard to the same; the alienation of any exclusive property of a spouse administered by the
other automatically terminates the administration over such property and the proceeds of the
alienation shall be turned over to the owner-spouse.
Governing rule: The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules on the contract of
partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is expressly determined in this Chapter or by the
spouses in their marriage settlements. Art. 108.
Rule on retirement benefits: Retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, gratuities, usufructs and
similar benefits shall be governed by the rules on gratuitous or onerous acquisitions as may be
proper in each case. Art. 115.
Rule property purchased on installment: Property bought on installments paid partly from
exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the buyer or
buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage and to the conjugal partnership if such
ownership was vested during the marriage. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership
or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the
partnership. Art. 118.
Rule on credits payable to one spouse on installments: Sums collected during the marriage in
partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property of the spouse.
However, interests falling due during the marriage on the principal shall belong to the conjugal
partnership. Art. 119
Rule on ownership of improvements: When improvements, whether for utility or adornment, are
made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts
or efforts of either or both spouses:
Cost of improvement and resulting value of property is > the value of the property at the
time of the improvement: the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal

11
partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time
of the improvement;
Cost of improvement and resulting value of property is < the value of the property at the
time of the improvement: property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise
subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.
In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which
shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
Presumption: All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have
been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal
unless the contrary is proved. (Art. 116)
Charges against CPG: Art. 121 states that the conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
• The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate children of either
spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions
of this Code on Support;
• All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-
spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of
them with the consent of the other;
• Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the
extent that the family may have benefited;
• All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor repairs upon the conjugal
partnership property;
• All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate
property of either spouse;
• Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional, vocational, or
other activity for self-improvement;
• Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the
family;
• The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common
legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional
or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement; and
• Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to groundless.
• If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall
be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.
Rule on payment of personal debts: The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband
or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties partnership
except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. Art. 122.
Rule on payment of fines and monetary indemnities: fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed
upon spouses shall not be charged to the partnership.

12
But the payment of personal debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, fines and
indemnities imposed upon them, and support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may be
enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Art. 121 have been
covered, if the liable spouse has no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time
of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the
purpose above-mentioned.
Rule on gambling losses and winnings during marriage: losing spouse and shall not be charged
to the conjugal partnership but any winnings therefrom shall form part of the conjugal partnership
property.
Right to administer: The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong
to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to
recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years
from the date of the contract implementing such decision. (Art.124, 1st par.)
Rule when one spouse is incapacitated: the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration but these powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of
the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent,
the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a
continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected
as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before
the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (Art.124, 2nd par.)
Rule on right to donate: Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without
the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make
moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family
rejoicing or family distress. Art. 125
Rule when one spouse abandons the other without cause: aggrieved spouse may petition the
court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole
administrator of the conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the
court may impose.
The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or
property relations.
A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling
without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three
months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts
shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. Art. 128.
Causes of dissolution: Art. 126 enumerates the following causes: (1) Upon the death of either
spouse; (2) When there is a decree of legal separation; (3) When the marriage is annulled or
declared void; or (4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Articles
134 to 138.

13
Procedure of Dissolution: Procedure for the dissolution of the CPG:
1. An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the conjugal
partnership and the exclusive properties of each spouse.
2. Amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership in payment of personal debts and
obligations of either spouse shall be credited to the conjugal partnership as an asset thereof.
3. Each spouse shall be reimbursed for the use of his or her exclusive funds in the acquisition
of property or for the value of his or her exclusive property, the ownership of which has
been vested by law in the conjugal partnership.
4. The debts and obligations of the conjugal partnership shall be paid out of the conjugal
assets. In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the
unpaid balance with their separate properties, in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (2) of Article 121.
5. Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered
to each of them.
6. Unless the owner had been indemnified from whatever source, the loss or deterioration of
movables used for the benefit of the family, belonging to either spouse, even due to
fortuitous event, shall be paid to said spouse from the conjugal funds, if any.
7. The net remainder of the conjugal partnership properties shall constitute the profits, which
shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or
division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements or unless there has been a voluntary
waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided in this Code.
8. The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon the partition in
accordance with Article 51.
9. In the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated
shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom
the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven
years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In
case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best
interests of said children.

Absolute Community of Property

Properties Covered: all properties that spouses bring into the marriage and those they acquired
during the marriage, except for certain properties expressly excluded by the marriage settlements
and the law. Art. 91
Excluded Properties: [Art. 92] (1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by
either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided
by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;
(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of
the community property;
(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a
former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property. (201a)

14
Start: at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated, and any stipulation for the
commencement of the community regime at any other time is void. Art. 88
Rule on Waiver: No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolute community of property
during the marriage can be made except in case of judicial separation of property. Art. 89
Governing rule: Primarily by the provisions of the FC and suppletorily by the provisions on co-
ownership. (Art. 90)
Presumptions: Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the
community, unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom.
Under the FC, in the absence of marriage settlements, ACP will govern the property relations of
the spouses
Charges against ACP: Art. 94 states: The absolute community of property shall be liable for:
1. The support of the spouses, their common children, and legitimate children of either
spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions
of this Code on Support;
2. All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-
spouse for the benefit of the community, or by both spouses, or by one spouse with the
consent of the other;
3. Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the
extent that the family may have been benefited;
4. All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major or minor repairs, upon the
community property;
5. All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during marriage upon the separate
property of either spouse used by the family;
6. Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional or vocational
course, or other activity for self-improvement;
7. Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the
family;
8. The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common
legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional
or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement;
9. Antenuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling under paragraph (7) of this
Article, the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, and liabilities incurred by
either spouse by reason of a crime or a quasi-delict, in case of absence or insufficiency of
the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the payment of which shall be considered as
advances to be deducted from the share of the debtor-spouse upon liquidation of the
community; and
10. Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless.

15
If the community property is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, except those falling
under paragraph (9), the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate
properties. (161a, 162a, 163a, 202a-205a)
Right to administer: The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong
to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to
recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years
from the date of the contract implementing such decision. (Art. 96, 1st par.)
Rule when one spouse is incapacitated: In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume
sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without
authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority
or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be
construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may
be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the
court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. Art. 92 (2nd par.)
Rule when one spouse abandons the other without cause: If a spouse without just cause
abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse
may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property or for authority to be the
sole administrator of the absolute community, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court
may impose.
The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or
property relations.
A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when her or she has left the conjugal dwelling
without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three
months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts
shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (Art. 101)
Rule on gambling losses and winnings during marriage: Art. 95. Whatever may be lost during
the marriage in any game of chance, betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind of gambling, whether
permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser and shall not be charged to
the community but any winnings therefrom shall form part of the community property. (164a)
Causes of dissolution: Art. 99. The absolute community terminates:
(1) Upon the death of either spouse;
(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
(4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Article 134 to 138.
(175a)

16
How liquidated: Art. 102. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime, the following
procedure shall apply:
1. An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the absolute
community and the exclusive properties of each spouse.
2. The debts and obligations of the absolute community shall be paid out of its assets. In case
of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance
with their separate properties in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of
Article 94.
3. Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered
to each of them.
4. The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net assets,
which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or
division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements, or unless there has been a voluntary
waiver of such share provided in this Code. For purpose of computing the net profits subject
to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall
be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time
of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.
5. The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon partition, in
accordance with Article 51.
6. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in the partition of the properties, the conjugal
dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom
the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven
years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In
case there in no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best
interests of said children.

Property Relations in General

Governing rule on property relations: The property relationship between husband and wife shall
be governed in the following order: (1) By marriage settlements executed before the marriage; (2)
By the provisions of this Code; and (3) By the local custom. Art. 74
When agreed: In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be
made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135
and 136. Art. 76.
When and How executed: The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in
writing, signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of the marriage. They shall not
prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry where the marriage
contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties. Art. 77.
Governing law: In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property
relations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the
celebration of the marriage and their residence. Art. 80.

17
FC will not apply when: (1) Where both spouses are aliens; (2) With respect to the extrinsic
validity of contracts affecting property not situated in the Philippines and executed in the country
where the property is located; and (3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered
into in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require
different formalities for its extrinsic validity.

18