UST CLR1 Week 4 Case Doctrines

UST Petition Class - CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1
EVANGELISTA, Robert Kevin B.

2017003472
UST CLR1 – Petition Class
CASE DOCTRINES FOR WEEK 4

TOPIC LAW CASE TITLE DOCTRINE
Donations propter Art. 77 of the FC Valencia v Loquiao, GR The Old Civil Code only requires
nuptias, FC 81 cf. Art. 86 122134, October 3, 2003 the celebration of marriage and
(1), FC 82 – 87, NCC Arts. (Old code applies since thecompliance with the prescribed
748-749, NCC 761, NCC DPN was executed in 1944. form (public instrument) to
765; FC Art. 50; 43 (3), FC NCC took effect in 1950) effectuate donation propter nuptias.
48; 44; 61
On the other hand, the New Civil
Code requires that the donation
propter nuptias be in writing to be
enforceable. No express acceptance
is necessary for its validity.
Donations propter Art. 81 of the FC Solis vs Solis, 53 Phil 912 In order to be valid, donation
nuptias, FC 81 cf. Art. 86 [1928] propter nuptias must be made in a
(1), FC 82 – 87, NCC Arts. public instrument, otherwise it will
748-749, NCC 761, NCC not create rights. Further, the
765; FC Art. 50; 43 (3), FC
marriage in a donation propter
48; 44; 61
nuptias is a resolutory condition. It
does not give rise to the obligation,
hence it may be revoked. The non-
celebration of marriage does not
mean that the DPN is not valid.
Donations propter Art. 83 of the FC If the donation propter nuptias is
nuptias, FC 81 cf. Art. 86 Mateo vs Lagua, 29 SCRA 864 inofficious(one that impairs the
(1), FC 82 – 87, NCC Arts. legtime), the same may be reduced.
748-749, NCC 761, NCC In order that a donation may be
765; FC Art. 50; 43 (3), FC
reduced for being inofficious, there
48; 44; 61
1
Week 1 Case Doctrines
must be proof that the value of the

donated property exceeds that of
the disposable free portion plus the
donee’s share as legitime in the
properties of the donor
Donations propter Art. 83 of the FC Cano v Cano, G.R. No. 188666, Under the Old Civil Code,
nuptias, FC 81 cf. Art. 86 December 14, 2017 acceptance may be made impliedly.
(1), FC 82 – 87, NCC Arts. However, under the Family Code,
748-749, NCC 761, NCC donation of immovable property
765; FC Art. 50; 43 (3), FC
needs to be expressly accepted in a
48; 44; 61
public instrument.
Art. 87 of the FC Matabuena v. Cervantes 38 The prohibition against donations
5. Void donations by the SCRA 284 between spouses during their
spouses, FC 87 marriage equally applies to
common law relationships.
Art. 87 of the FC Arcaba vs. Tabancura, G.R. No. The prohibition against donations
5. Void donations by the 146683. Nov. 22, 2001 between spouses during their
spouses, FC 87 marriage equally applies to
common law relationships.
Absolute community of Art. 92 (1) of the FC Muller v Muller, G.R. NO. Pursuant to Article 92 of the Family
property (ACP) – FC 88, 149615, August 29, 2006 Code, properties acquired by
91, 92, 93 gratuitous title by either spouse during
the marriage shall be excluded from
8. Exclusions from ACP, the community property. The real
FC 92; FC 95 property inherited by petitioner in
Germany is excluded from the absolute
community of property of the spouses.
The part of that inheritance used by the
petitioner for acquiring the house and
lot in this country cannot be recovered
by the petitioner, its acquisition being
a violation of Section 7, Article XII of
2
the Constitution.
Art. 89 of the FC Beumer v Amores, GR 195670, The Court cannot grant reimbursement
December 3, 2012 to petitioner given that he acquired no
right whatsoever over the subject
properties by virtue of its
unconstitutional purchase.
Absolute Community of Article 92 (3) FC Abrenica v Abrenica, G.R. No. Property acquired before the marriage
Property 180572, June 18, 2012 of a spouse who has legitimate
descendants by a former marriage; and
the fruits and the income, if any, of
that property are excluded from the
community property.
Charges upon ACP Art. 122 of FC Buado vs. CA, G.R. No. Conjugal property cannot be held
145222, April 24, 2009 liable for the personal obligation
contracted by one spouse, unless some
advantage or benefit is shown to have
accrued to the conjugal partnership.
Administration and Art 90 FC Dar v Legasto, G.R. No. The signing of one of the spouses in
enjoyment of ACP (Joint 143016, August 30, 2000 the certification substantially complies
administration, FC 90) with the rules on certification of non-
forum shopping
Absolute Community of Art 165, 172, 96 Cotoner vs. Revilla, G.R. No. In the event that one spouse is
Property – Joint 190901, November 12, 2014 incapacitated or otherwise unable to
Administration 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
3
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.
Absolute Community of Art 96 FC, Art 12, sec 3 Matthews vs. Taylor, GR The rule is that aliens are
Property (ACP) Consti 164584, June 22, 2009 absolutely not allowed to acquire
public or private lands in the
Philippines, save those
constitutionally recognized
exceptions. Here, the foreigner has
no right to nullify the subject lease
agreement. The sole ownership
belongs to the Filipino spouse in
this case.
Liquidation of Conjugal FC Art 130, 105 Heirs of Go v Servacio, GR The sale by Protacio, Sr. and Rito as co-
Partnership after Death 157537, Sept. 7, 2011 owners without the consent of the
other co-owners was not necessarily
void, for the rights of the selling co-
owners were thereby effectively
transferred, making the buyer
(Servacio) a co-owner of Marta’s share.
Article 105 of the Family Code,
expressly provides that the
applicability of the rules on
4
dissolution of the conjugal partnership

is “without prejudice to vested rights
already acquired in accordance with
the Civil Code or other laws.”
Co-ownership Domingo vs. Molina, G.R. No. While Article 130 of the Family Code
Art 130, FC 200274, April 20, 2016 provides that any disposition
involving the conjugal property
without prior liquidation of the
partnership shall be void, this rule
does not apply since the provisions of
the Family Code shall be "without
prejudice to vested rights already
acquired in accordance with the Civil
Code or other laws.”
Co-ownership Uy v Estate of Fernandez, G.R. Under the regime of conjugal
Art 130 FC No. 200612, April 5, 2017 partnership of gains, the husband and
wife are co-owners of all the property
of the conjugal partnership. Here,
Rafael bought Levi’s one-half share in
the subject property when the conjugal
partnership properties of Levi and
Vipa were not yet liquidated. However,
such disposition, notwithstanding the
absence of liquidation of the conjugal
partnership properties, is not
necessarily void.
Art. 126 Ugalde v Ysasi, GR 130623, It was held that the finality of a court
February 29, 2008 order approving the parties’ separation
of property resulted in the termination
of the conjugal partnership of gains in
5
accordance with Art 175 of the Civil

Code, which is governing in this case.
Under Article 175 of the Civil Code, the
judicial separation of property results
in the termination of the conjugal
partnership of gains
Art. 126 Lavadia vs. Heirs of Luna, G.R. The conjugal partnership of gains
No. 171914, July 23, 2014 subsists until terminated for any of the
various causes of termination
enumerated under Article 175 of the
Civil Code. The mere execution of the
Agreement by Atty. Luna and Eugenia
did not per se dissolve and liquidate
their conjugal partnership of gains.
The approval of the Agreement by a
competent court was still required
under Article 190 and Article 191 of the
Civil Code.
Art. 126 Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. Here, there was no abandonment that
188289, August 20, 2014 will warrant the granting of judicial
separation of property. Separation in
fact for one year as a ground to grant a
judicial separation of property was not
tackled in the trial court’s decision
because, the trial court erroneously
treated the petition as liquidation of
the absolute community of properties.
Art. 126 Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. It was held that upon the grant of legal
183622, July 4, 2012 separation, the severance of the
property relationship is also proper,
the guilty spouse forfeits his share to
6
their common children. Since the

petitioner is living with a woman not
his wife is enough to grant the decree
of legal separation, then the petitioner
cannot obtain any property aside from
his separate one. Here, the spouses
have no separate properties when they
married, hence, there is nothing to
return to any of them.
Dino v Dino, GR 178044, Petitioner’s marriage to respondent

January 19, 2011 was declared void under Article 36 of
the Family Code and not under Article
40 or 45. Thus, what governs the
liquidation of properties owned in
common by petitioner and respondent
are the rules on co-ownership.
Absolute community of Yu v Reyes-Carpio, GR If the Court eventually finds that the

property (ACP) – FC 88, 189207, June 15, 2011 parties’ respective petitions for
91, 92, 93 declaration of nullity of marriage is
indeed meritorious on the basis of
1. When applicable, FC either or both of the parties’
75, 103 (3); 130 (3); 92 (3) psychological incapacity, then the
parties shall proceed to comply with
2. Commencement, FC 88 Article 50 and 51 of the Family Code
3. Waiver during before a final decree of absolute nullity
of marriage can be issued.
marriage, FC 89
4. Waiver after marriage,

FC 89 par. 2 cf NCC Art.
168
7
5. Suppletory rules:
Co-ownership, FC 90; of
NCC 484-501
6. What constitutes ACP,

FC 91
Memorize!
(a) All property at time of

marriage
(b) Property acquired
subsequently
(c) Winnings from
gambling, FC as of NCC
164
7. Presumption of ACP,
FC 93 of NCC 160
8. Exclusions from ACP,

FC 92; FC 95
9. Charges upon ACP,

FC 94
(a) Family expenses cf.

FC 100 (3), FC 121(5) and
FC 94 (4), (5)
(b) Debts of spouses, Art.

94 (2) and (3)
(c) Subsidiary liabilities,

8
Art. 94 (9)
(d) Sole obligations of a
spouse, Art. 94
(e) Gambling losses, FC

95
(f) Other charges, Art. 94
10. Administration and

enjoyment of ACP
(a) Joint administration,

FC 96; FC 90
(b) Sole administration
(1) incapacity, FC 96 (2)

– no court order
(2) separation in fact FC
100 (3) – with court order
(3) abandonment, FC 101
– with court order
(4) pendency of legal
separation proceeding, FC
61 – with court order
(c) Disposition and

encumbrance, FC 96-98
11. Effect of separation de

facto, FC 100; 101; cf. FC
239 – summary
9
proceedings for court

authority to dispose
12. Effect of
abandonment, FC 101, FC
72 – damages,
rescission/nullity of a
contract
13. Dissolution of ACP,

FC 99, 102, 43 (2); FC
63(2), 104
(a) Death, FC 103 cf.

Rule 73 Sec. 12 ROC
(b) Legal separation, FC
63(2); FC 66
(c) Annulment and
declaration of nullity, FC
50 in rel. to FC 43 (2)
(d) Judicial separation of
property, FC 134-138
14. Effects of dissolution
(a) Liquidation procedure,

FC 102 (cf 106, 129[7])
(b) For cause other than
death, FC 43 (2); FC
63(2); 147; 148
(c) Termination due to
death, FC 104
Conjugal partnership of Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. It was held that upon the grant of legal
10
gains 183622, July 4, 2012 separation, the severance of the

property relationship is also proper,
the guilty spouse forfeits his share to
their common children. Since the
petitioner is living with a woman not
his wife is enough to grant the decree
of legal separation, then the petitioner
cannot obtain any property aside from
his separate one. Here, since the trial
court found the petitioner the guilty
party, his share from the net profits of
the conjugal partnership is forfeited in
favor of the common children,
pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Family
Code.
Conjugal partnership of BPI v. Fernandez G.R. The and/or bank deposit that is co-
gains No.173134, September 2, 2015 owned by the spouses herein shall
not be allowed to be withdrawn by
one spouse alone without the
consent of the other. Here, the bank
deposit is conjugal property. Thus,
it was an error amounting to bad
faith on the part of BPI to allow
Manuel alone to obtain the
proceeds of said bank deposit.
Conjugal partnership of Heirs of Jarque v Jarque, GR Pursuant to the Old Civil Code, the
gains 196733, Nov. 21, 2018 default property regime of the
husband and wife is the conjugal
partnership of gains. Upon the
death of either spouse, the conjugal
partnership is dissolved. Here, the
11
surviving spouse is entitled to her

½ share in the partnership, while
the remaining half belongs to the
estate of the deceased which will be
inherited by his forced heirs.
a. Presumption of CPG, Titan v David, G.R. No. Art. 116 of the FC provides that "all
FC 116 169548, March 15, 2010 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." While it
is true that Manuel failed to present
before the RTC any proof of his
financial capacity in 1970, the
presumption that the property is
conjugal applies. Manuel was not
required to prove that the property was
acquired with funds of the partnership.
The property is presumed conjugal
even when the manner in which the
property was acquired does not appear.
a. Presumption of CPG, Imani vs. Metrobank, G.R. No. All property of the marriage is
FC 116 187023 November 17, 2010. presumed to be conjugal. However, for
this presumption to apply, the party
who invokes it must first prove that the
property was acquired during the
marriage. Proof of acquisition during
the coverture is an indispensable
condition for the operation of the
presumption in favor of the conjugal
partnership. Thus, the time when the
property was acquired is material.
12
a. Presumption of CPG, Dewara v Lamela, GR 179010, The separation-in-fact between the

FC 116 April 11, 2011 husband and the wife without judicial
approval shall not affect the conjugal
partnership. The lot retains its conjugal
nature. Moreover, the presumption of
conjugal ownership applies even when
the manner in which the property was
acquired does not appear. The use of
the conjugal funds is not an essential
requirement for the presumption to
arise.
a. Presumption of CPG, Lim v. Equitable PCI Bank, The absence of his wife’s signature on
FC 116 G.R. No. 183918. January 15, the mortgage contract also has no
2014. bearing in this case. All property of the
marriage is presumed to be conjugal,
unless it is shown that it is owned
exclusively by the husband or the wife;
that this presumption is not overcome
by the fact that the property is
registered in the name of the husband
or the wife alone; and that the consent
of both spouses is required before a
conjugal property may be mortgaged.
a. Presumption of CPG, Spouses Carlos vs Tolentino, Since the subject property was
FC 116 GR No 234533, June 2, 2018 acquired on March 17, 1967 during the
marriage of Juan and Mercedes, it
formed part of their conjugal
partnership. It follows then that Juan
and Mercedes are the absolute owners
of their undivided one-half interest,
respectively, over the subject property.
13
Meanwhile, as in any other property

relations between husband and wife,
the conjugal partnership is terminated
upon the death of either of the spouses
a. Presumption of CPG, Art 116, FC Heirs of Jarque v Jarque, GR Under the Old Civil Code, the default
FC 116 All property acquired 196733, Nov. 21, 2018 property regime of the husband and
during the marriage, wife is the conjugal partnership of
whether the gains. Unless proved otherwise,
acquisition appears to properties acquired during the
have been made, marriage are considered partnership
contracted or registered property. Here, Laureano died in 1946,
in the name of one or prior to the effectivity of Republic Act
both spouses, is (R.A.) No. 386 or the New Civil Code
presumed to be on August 30, 1950. At the time of his
conjugal unless the death, the governing law as to the
contrary is proved. property relations between husband
and wife and the successional rights
among the decedent's heirs is the Old
Civil Code.
a. Presumption of CPG, Art 116, FC Malabanan vs. Malabanan,

FC 116 All property acquired G.R. No. 187225, March 6, Under the Civil Code, property
during the marriage, 2019 acquired during marriage is presumed
whether the to be conjugal. There is no need to
acquisition appears to prove that the money used to purchase
have been made, a property came from the conjugal
contracted or registered fund. What must be established is that
in the name of one or the property was acquired during
both spouses, is marriage. Only through "clear,
presumed to be categorical, and convincing" proof to
conjugal unless the the contrary will it be considered the
contrary is proved. paraphernal property of one (1) of the
14
spouses.
Here, the pieces of evidence presented
by respondents, who had the burden of
proving that the property was not
conjugal, were insufficient to overturn
this presumption.
a. Presumption of CPG, Art 116, FC Jorge vs. Marcelo, G.R. No. The phrase "married to Romeo J.
FC 116 All property acquired 232989. March 18, 2019. Jorge" written after her name in TCT
during the marriage, No. N-45328 is merely descriptive of
whether the her civil status as the registered owner.
acquisition appears to It does not necessarily prove or
have been made, indicate that the land is a conjugal
contracted or registered property of Rufina and Romeo or that
in the name of one or they co-own it. It is not a proof that the
both spouses, is property was acquired during the
presumed to be marriage.
conjugal unless the
contrary is proved.
b. Inclusions: CPG, FC Art. 105 FC Villanueva vs CA, 427 SCRA The presumption in Article 116,
106, 117, 115, 118, 119, Art. 116 FC 439 which subsists "unless the contrary
120 is proved," stands as an obstacle to
any claim the petitioners may have.
The burden of proving that a
property is exclusive property of a
spouse rests on the party asserting
it and the evidence required must
be clear and convincing. Here, the
petitioners failed to overcome the
presumption.
15
b. Inclusions: CPG, FC Art. 106. Under the Mendoza v. Reyes, 124 SCRA Property acquired during a
106, 117, 115, 118, 119, regime of conjugal 154 marriage is presumed to be
partnership of gains, the
120 conjugal and the fact that the land
husband and wife place
in a common fund the is later registered in the name of
proceeds, products, fruits only one of the spouses does not
and income from their destroy its conjugal nature.
separate properties and
those acquired by either
or both spouses through
their efforts or by chance,
and, upon dissolution of
the marriage or of the
partnership, the net gains
or benefits obtained by
either or both spouses
shall be divided equally
between them, unless
otherwise agreed in the
marriage settlements.
b. Inclusions: CPG, FC Art 116, FC De La Pena v Avila, Feb. 2012 Although it is not necessary to prove
106, 117, 115, 118, 119, All property acquired that the property was acquired with
120 during the marriage, funds of the partnership, proof of
whether the acquisition during the marriage is an
acquisition appears to essential condition for the operation of
have been made, the presumption in favor of the
contracted or registered conjugal partnership
in the name of one or
both spouses, is
presumed to be
conjugal unless the
contrary is proved.
16
c. Exclusions from CPG, Laperal v. Katigbak, 10 SCRA All properties acquired during the
FC 109 Art. 109, FC 493 marriage are presumed conjugal
under Art. 160 of the Civil Code.
The following shall be
However, the presumption is not
the exclusive property
of each spouse: conclusive for the same law is
unequivocal that it exists only
(1) That which is "unless it be proved that it (the
brought to the property) belongs exclusively to the
marriage as his or her husband or the wife." Here, the
own; presumption was sufficiently
rebutted by the testimony of the
(2) That which each
witness and the admission of the
acquires during the
husband himself.
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.
c. Exclusions from CPG, Francisco v CA, 1998 The property already owned by a
FC 109 Art. 109, FC spouse prior to the marriage, and
brought to the marriage is considered
17
his or her separate property.

The following shall be Acquisitions by lucrative title refers to
the exclusive property properties acquired gratuitously and
of each spouse: include those acquired by either
spouse during the marriage by
(1) That which is inheritance, devise, legacy, or
brought to the donation. Hence, even if it be assumed
marriage as his or her that Eusebio's acquisition by
own; succession of the land took place
during his second marriage, the land
(2) That which each would still be his "exclusive property"
acquires during the because it was acquired by him,
marriage by gratuitous "during the marriage, by lucrative
title; title."
(3) That which is
or by exchange with
only one of the
spouses; and
(4) That which is

purchased with
c. Exclusions from CPG, Tan v Andrade, GR 171904, The party who invokes the
FC 109 Art. 109, FC Aug 7, 2013 presumption must first prove that the
The following shall be marriage. In other words, the
the exclusive property presumption in favor of conjugality
18
does not operate if there is no showing

of each spouse: of when the property alleged to be
conjugal was acquired.
(1) That which is
brought to the
marriage as his or her
own;
(2) That which each

acquires during the
title;
(3) That which is

or by exchange with
only one of the
spouses; and
(4) That which is

purchased with
c. Exclusions from CPG, Veloso v. Martinez, 28 Phil 255 The record shows that the jewelry was
FC 109 Art. 109, FC the sole and separate property of the
wife, acquired from her mother, and in
The following shall be the absence of further proof, the
the exclusive property presumption is that they constituted a
of each spouse: part of her paraphernal property.
19
(1) That which is

brought to the
own;
(2) That which each

acquires during the
title;
(3) That which is

or by exchange with
only one of the
spouses; and
(4) That which is

purchased with
c. Exclusions from CPG, Berciles v. GSIS,128 SCRA 53, As to the retirement premiums, the
FC 109 Art. 109, FC cf. FC 115 same is presumed conjugal property,
there being no proof that the premiums
The following shall be were paid from the exclusive funds of
the exclusive property the deceased Judge (Article 160, New
of each spouse: Civil Code). Such being the case, one-
half of the amount belongs to the wife
(1) That which is as her property in the conjugal
brought to the partnership and the other half shall go
20
to the estate of the deceased Judge

marriage as his or her which shall in turn be distributed to
own; his legal heirs.
(2) That which each

acquires during the
title;
(3) That which is

or by exchange with
only one of the
spouses; and
(4) That which is

purchased with
c. Exclusions from CPG, Plata v. Yatco, 12 SCRA 718 The conveyance of paraphernal
FC 109 Art. 109, FC property of the wife to a third person
and its reconveyance to her several
The following shall be months afterwards, does not transform
the exclusive property it to conjugal property, in the absence
of each spouse: of proof that the money paid in the
reconveyance came from conjugal
(1) That which is funds.
brought to the
21
own;
(2) That which each

acquires during the
title;
(3) That which is

or by exchange with
only one of the
spouses; and
(4) That which is

purchased with
4. Administration of Art. 110. The spouses Veloso v. Martinez, supra The subject jewelry in this case is
exclusive property retain the ownership, her paraphernal property. She can
possession, exercise dominion over the same. She
(a) By the spouse-owner, administration and had the exclusive control and
FC 110 enjoyment of their management of the same, until and
(b) By the other spouse, exclusive properties. unless she had delivered it to her
FC 110 2nd par; FC 142, husband, before a notary public, with
75, 227 the intent that the husband might
Either spouse may, administer it properly. There is no
during the marriage, proof in the record that she had ever
transfer the delivered the same to her husband, in
administration of his
22
or her exclusive any manner, or for any purpose. That

property to the other being true, she could not be deprived
by means of a public of the same by any act of her husband,
instrument, which without her consent, and without
compliance with the provisions of the
shall be recorded in
Civil Code.
the registry of
property of the place
the property is
located.
4. Administration of Art. 110. The spouses Manotok Realty v. CA, 149 The subject lot in this case is the
exclusive property retain the ownership, SCRA 372 paraphernal property of Clara
possession, Tambunting and at the time of the sale
(a) By the spouse-owner, administration and thereof, the owner was already dead.
FC 110 there is, however, nothing in the
enjoyment of their
(b) By the other spouse, records that will show that Vicente
exclusive properties.
FC 110 2nd par; FC 142, Legarda was the administrator of the
75, 227 paraphernal properties of Dona Clara
Either spouse may, Tambuniting during her lifetime.
during the marriage, Thus, the wife retains the ownership of
transfer the the paraphernal property.
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
23
located.
4. Administration of The party who invokes Ong vs CA, 204 SCRA 297 The mere use of the surname of the
exclusive property the presumption that husband in the tax declaration of the
all property of the subject property is not sufficient proof
(a) By the spouse-owner, marriage belongs to that said property was acquired during
FC 110 the conjugal the marriage and is therefore conjugal.
(b) By the other spouse, partnership (Art. 160,
FC 110 2nd par; FC 142, New Civil Code) must
75, 227 first prove that the
property was acquired
during the marriage.
Proof of acquisition
during the marriage is
a condition sine qua
non for the operation
of the presumption in
favor of the conjugal
partnership.
5.Encumbrance/ Old CC Wong et al. v. IAC 200 SCRA Under the Old Code, a wife may bind
disposition of exclusive 792 the conjugal partnership only when
property, FC 111 as she purchases things necessary for the
amended by RA 10572, support of the family or when she
FC 112 borrows money for the purpose of
purchasing things necessary for the
support of the family if the husband
fails to deliver the proper sum; when
the administration of the conjugal
partnership is transferred to the wife
by the courts or by the husband and
when the wife gives moderate
24
donations for charity.
6. Property bought on Jovellanos v CA, G.R. No. Jovellanos’ right to the property under
installment, FC Art. 118, 100728 June 18, 1992 the contract with Philamlife was
119 merely an inchoate and expectant right
which would ripen into a vested right
only upon his acquisition of ownership
which was contingent upon his full
payment of the rentals and compliance
with all his contractual obligations.
6. Property bought on Tarrosa vs. De Leon, GR Since the property was acquired
installment, FC Art. 118, 185063, July 23, 2009 during the existence of the
119 marriage, the ownership of the
property is presumed to belong to
the conjugal partnership. Here, the
petitioners claim that the subject
property exclusively belongs to
Bonifacio. While it is true that when
the contract to sell was executed
before the marriage, the full
payment of the purchase price was
made during the marriage. Hence,
the presumption arises that when
marriage, the ownership belongs to
the conjugal partnership.
7. Improvements on CPG Art. 120 Munoz, Jr. v Ramirez, GR When the cost of the improvement and
property, FC 120 156125, August 25, 2010 any resulting increase in value are
more than the value of the property at
the time of the improvement, the entire
property of one of the spouses shall
25
belong to the conjugal partnership,

subject to reimbursement of the value
of the property of the owner-spouse at
the time of the improvement;
otherwise, said property shall be
retained in ownership by the owner-
spouse, likewise subject to
reimbursement of the cost of the
improvement.
7. Improvements on CPG Art. 120 Padilla v Padilla, October 4,

property, FC 120 1943 The ownership of the land is retained
by the wife until she is paid the value
of the lot, as a result of the liquidation
of the conjugal partnership. The mere
construction of a building from
common funds does not automatically
convey the ownership of the wife's
land to the conjugal partnership. Such
a mode of using the land, namely, by
erecting a building thereon, is simply
an exercise of the right of usufruct
pertaining to the conjugal partnership
over the wife's land.
7. Improvements on CPG Art. 120 Padilla v Paterno, December 26, As sole owner of those properties that
property, FC 120 1961 never became conjugal because the
conjugal improvements thereon were
destroyed before they could be paid for
to the widow, as well as those
properties that never ceased to be
paraphernal because there were
paraphernal buildings thereon at the
time of the termination of the conjugal
26
partnership, the widow is also the

owner of all their income that accrued
during their administration by the
executrix-appellant until they were
finally delivered to the estate of the
said widow, who later died, minus the
administration expenses incurred by
said executrix-appellant with respect to
those paraphernal properties.
7. Improvements on CPG Art. 120 Coingco v Flores, 82 Phil. 284 If there were buildings erected on the
property, FC 120 lands which were paraphernal
Question: The lots, assuming personal property of the appellee
them to be paraphernal, during the latter's marriage with the
automatically became conjugal appellant, and such buildings were
from the moment that buildings destroyed by reason of the recent war,
were constructed thereon, before the liquidation of the conjugal
although the buildings were partnership of both spouses, it is
destroyed during the recent war obvious that the conjugal partnership
and before the liquidation of the did not ipso facto acquire the land
conjugal partnership (no) from the time of the construction of the
buildings, so as to make afterwards the
land without any buildings a conjugal
property of the result of the liquidation
of the conjugal partnership.
8. Charges upon and Art. 122 Ayala vs CA, 286 SCRA 272
obligations of CPG, FC If the husband himself is the principal
121, 122, 123 obligor in the contract, i.e., he directly
received the money and services to be
used in or for his own business or his
own profession, that contract falls
within the term “obligations for the
benefit of the conjugal partnership.”
27
Here, no actual benefit may be proved.

It is enough that the benefit to the
family is apparent at the time of the
signing of the contract.
8. Charges upon and Art. 121 Ching vs CA, 423 SCRA 356 To hold the conjugal partnership
obligations of CPG, FC liable for a liability pertaining to
121, 122, 123 one spouse alone, it must be shown
that some advantages accrued to the
benefit of the spouses.
There is no presumption that the

conjugal partnership is benefited when
a spouse enters into a contract of
surety.
8. Charges upon and Art. 121 Homeowners vs. Dailo, G.R. Article 121 of the Family Code, the
obligations of CPG, FC 153802, Mar.11, 2005 conjugal partnership shall be liable for
121, 122, 123 the (3) Debts and obligations
contracted by either spouse without the
consent of the other to the extent that
the family may have been benefited.
There must be a clear showing that
some advantage which inured to the
welfare and benefit of the spouses.
8. Charges upon and Art. 121 Ando v Campo, GR 184007, Here, the wife co-owns the property
obligations of CPG, FC February 16, 2011 in question with her husband. The
121, 122, 123 judgment pertaining to the co-
28
owned property cannot be enforced

since the wife was not even a party
to the case. As a result, she will be
deprived of her property without
due process.
8. Charges upon and Art. 121 Security Bank vs. Mar Tiera If the money or services are given to
obligations of CPG, FC Corp., G.R. No. 143382, Nov. another person or entity and the
121, 122, 123 29, 2006 husband acted only as a surety or
guarantor, the transaction cannot by
itself be deemed an obligation for the
benefit of the conjugal partnership. It
is for the benefit of the principal
debtor and not for the surety or his
family.
8. Charges upon and Ravina v Villa-Abrille, GR No. Alienation or encumbrance of the

obligations of CPG, FC 160708, Oct. 16, 2009 conjugal partnership property by the
121, 122, 123 husband without the consent of the
wife is null and void.
8. Charges upon and Hernandez v Mingoa, G.R. No. The failure of Sergia to file an action
obligations of CPG, FC 146548, Dec. 18, 2009 for annulment of the contract during
121, 122, 123 the marriage and within ten years from
the transaction necessarily barred her
form questioning the sale of the
subject property to 3rd persons.
Fuentes v Roca, GR No. Article 173 of the Civil Code, Article

178902, April 21, 2010 124 of the Family Code does not
provide a period within which the wife
who gave no consent may assail her
husband’s sale of the real property. It
29
simply provides that without the other

spouse’s written consent or a court
order allowing the sale, the same
would be void.
8. Charges upon and Art 166, Old Civil Code Aguete v PNB, GR 170166, The husband cannot alienate or
obligations of CPG, FC - Unless the wife has April 6, 2011 encumber any conjugal real property
121, 122, 123 been declared a non without the consent, express or
compos mentis or a implied, of the wife. Should the
spendthrift, or is under husband do so, then the contract is
civil interdiction or is voidable.
confined in a
leprosarium, the Under the New Civil Code, the
husband cannot husband cannot alienate or encumber
alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the
any real property of the consent, express or implied, of the
conjugal partnership wife. Should the husband do so, then
without the wife’s the contract is void.
consent. If she refuses
unreasonably to give
her consent, the court
may compel her to
grant the same.
8. Charges upon and Art. 122 Pana vs. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., Here, it was shown that the wife
obligations of CPG, FC G.R. No. 164201, December 10, has no exclusive property. Thus, the
121, 122, 123 2012 civil indemnity in the criminal case
may be imposed against their
conjugal assets after the liabilities
under Article 121 of the FC have
been satisfied.
8. Charges upon and Art. 122 Borlongan v BDO, G.R. No. The husband may file an
obligations of CPG, FC 217617, G. R. No. April 5, 2017 independent action for annulment
30
121, 122, 123 of the attachment of their conjugal

property since he is a stranger to the
case. However, it must be noted that
when some benefit accrued to the
spouses, the husband now is
estopped from filing said
independent action.
8. Charges upon and Art. 121 Montealegre and Chamon’te, It was an error on the part of the
obligations of CPG, FC Inc. vs. Spouses De Vera, G.R. labor arbiter to include the conjugal
121, 122, 123 No. 208920, July 10, 2019. property of the spouses in the
execution of his judgment. Even
though Remedios did not file a
third-party claim within five days
from the last day of publication of
the notice of execution sale. She
was not impleaded in the case.
Being a stranger to the case, she
cannot be deprived of the property
without due process of law.
8. Charges upon and Boston Equity Resources, Inc. As a consequence, the findings of the
obligations of CPG, FC vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. CA on the lack of Rosie's written
121, 122, 123 173946, June 19, 2013 consent to the REM and its amendment
stand unrefuted. Such findings warrant
the nullification not only of the REM
and its amendment, but also of all the
proceedings taken to foreclose the
REM. Such invalidity applied to the
entire mortgage, even to the portion
corresponding to the share of Edgardo
in the conjugal estate.
9. Ownership, Art. 124 Homeowners vs. Dailo, G.R. During the lifetime of Dailo Jr.,
31
administration and No. 153802, Mar. 11, 2005 constituted a real estate mortgage on
enjoyment the subject property, which formed
part of their conjugal partnership
(a) Joint administration, without the knowledge and consent of
FC 124 cf. FC 96, 142 his wife. By express provision of
Article 124 of the Family Code, in the
(b) Sole administration absence of court authority or written
consent of the other spouse, any
(1) Incapacity, FC 124, disposition or encumbrance of the
conjugal property shall be void.
253
(2) Separation in fact, FC
100 (3), 127(3), 253
(3) Abandonment, FC
101, 128, 253
(4) Pendency of legal
separation proceedings,
FC 61
9. Ownership, Art. 124 Alinas vs Alinas, GR No. In pursuance with Article 124 of the FC
administration and 158040, April 14, 2008 the sale of petitioners' conjugal
enjoyment property made by petitioner Onesiforo
*note alone is void because the same was
(a) Joint administration, The court applied the FC with made without the consent of his wife.
FC 124 cf. FC 96, 142 regard to the property relations The buyers of herein subject lot were
although the spouses were aware of the fact that the property is a
(b) Sole administration married before the effectivity of conjugal property of the spouses.
the Family Code. The sale in
(1) Incapacity, FC 124, question occurred in 1989.
253
100 (3), 127(3), 253
(3) Abandonment, FC
101, 128, 253
32

FC 61
9. Ownership, Art. 124 Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 The signing petitioner in this case
administration and SCRA 658 made the certification in his behalf and
enjoyment that of his wife. The husband may
reasonably be presumed to have
(a) Joint administration, personal knowledge of the filing or
FC 124 cf. FC 96, 142 non-filing by his wife of any action or
claim similar to the petition for
(b) Sole administration certiorari and prohibition given the
notices and legal processes involved in
a legal proceeding involving real
(1) Incapacity, FC 124,
property.
253
100 (3), 127(3), 253
(3) Abandonment, FC
101, 128, 253
FC 61
9. Ownership, Art. 124 Aggabao vs. Parulan, G.R. No.

administration and 165803, Sept. 1, 2010 The sale was made on March 18, 1991,
enjoyment or after August 3, 1988, the effectivity
of the Family Code. The proper law to
(a) Joint administration, apply is, therefore, Article 124 of the
FC 124 cf. FC 96, 142 Family Code, for it is settled that any
alienation or encumbrance of conjugal
property made during the effectivity of
(b) Sole administration
the Family Code is governed by Article
124 of the Family Code. Under Article
(1) Incapacity, FC 124,
33
253
(2) Separation in fact, FC 256 of the Family Code, the provisions
100 (3), 127(3), 253 of the Family Code may apply
(3) Abandonment, FC retroactively provided no vested rights
101, 128, 253 are impaired. Here, the petitioner did
(4) Pendency of legal not show any vested right in the
property acquired before the effectivity
of the Family Code.
FC 61
9. Ownership, Art. 124 Uy vs. CA, 346 SCRA 246

administration and The situation contemplated is one
enjoyment where the spouse is absent, or
separated in fact or has abandoned the
(a) Joint administration, other or consent is withheld or cannot
FC 124 cf. FC 96, 142 be obtained. Such rules do not apply to
cases where the non-consenting spouse
(b) Sole administration is incapacitated or incompetent to give
consent. Here, the subject spouse is an
(1) Incapacity, FC 124, incompetent, being in comatose
253 condition, thus the remedy is judicial
(2) Separation in fact, FC guardianship.
100 (3), 127(3), 253
(3) Abandonment, FC
101, 128, 253
FC 61
10. Disposition and Art. 124 Cheeseman v. IAC 193 SCRA The petitioner, being a foreigner,
encumbrance, FC 124- 93 has no capacity to question the
34
125; FC 97, 121, 122 subsequent sale of the property by

his wife on the theory that in so
doing, he is merely exercising the
prerogative of a husband with
respect to their conjugal property.
To sustain such theory would
permit indirect controversion of the
constitutional prohibition.
10. Disposition and Art. 124 Frenzel vs. Catito, G.R. No. The petitioner in this case bought a
encumbrance, FC 124- 143958, July 11, 2003 real property on the assumption
125; FC 97, 121, 122 that the same will become their
conjugal property. Such purchase is
violative of the Constitution, since
foreigners are not allowed to own
public or private lands in the
Philippines. Hence, the sale of the
property is null and void and vests
no right and creates no obligations.
10. Disposition and Art. 124 Alinas vs. Alinas, G.R. No.
encumbrance, FC 124- 158040, April 14, 2008 In the absence of court authority or
125; FC 97, 121, 122 written consent of the other spouse, any
disposition or encumbrance of the
conjugal property shall be void. Further,
the sale of petitioners' conjugal property
made by one spouse alone is void in its
entirety.
10. Disposition and Art. 124 Siochi v Gozon, G.R. No. A spouse who was designated as
encumbrance, FC 124- 169900, March 18, 2010 the sole administrator of the
125; FC 97, 121, 122 property cannot dispose of said
35
property without the consent of

his/her spouse. Even if the other
spouse actively participated in
negotiating for the sale, without the
consent of the other, the sale is
void.
10. Disposition and Art. 124 Aguete v PNB, GR 170166, The husband cannot alienate or
encumbrance, FC 124- April 6, 2011 encumber any conjugal real property
125; FC 97, 121, 122 without the consent, express or
The court applied the Old Code implied, of the wife. Should the
since the marriage and the husband do so, then the contract is
encumbrance/disposition of the voidable.
property occurred before the
FC. Hence “voidable” not
“void”
10. Disposition and Art. 124 Flores v Lindo, GR 183984, In the event that one spouse is
encumbrance, FC 124- April 13, 2011 incapacitated or otherwise unable to
125; FC 97, 121, 122 participate in the administration of the
conjugal properties, the other spouse
may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not
include disposition or encumbrance
without authority of the court or the
written consent of the other spouse. In
the absence of such authority or
consent the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void. However,
the transaction shall be construed as a
continuing offer on the part of the
consenting spouse and the third
person, and may be perfected as a
binding contract upon the acceptance
by the other spouse or authorization by
36
the court before the offer is withdrawn

by either or both offerors.
10. Disposition and Old CC Ko v Aramburo, G. R. No. While the husband is prohibited from
encumbrance, FC 124- Art. 173. The wife may, 190995, August 9, 2017 selling the commonly-owned real
125; FC 97, 121, 122 during the marriage, property without his wife's consent,
and within ten years still, such sale is not void but merely
from the transaction voidable. The wife has the right to
questioned, ask the have the sale annulled during the
courts for the marriage within 10 years from the sale.
annulment of any
contract of the husband
entered into without
her consent, when such
consent is required, or
any act or contract of
the husband which
tends to defraud her or
impair her interest in
the conjugal
partnership property.
Should the wife fail to
exercise this right, she
or her heirs, after the
dissolution of the
marriage, may demand
the value of property
fraudulently alienated
by the husband.
10. Disposition and Art 119 of the Civil Carlos v Tolentino, GR No. While it has been settled that the
encumbrance, FC 124- Code 23533, June 27, 2018 congruence of the wills of the spouses
125; FC 97, 121, 122 Art 105 of the FC is essential for the valid disposition of
37
conjugal property, it cannot be ignored

that Mercedes' consent to the
disposition of her one-half interest in
the subject property remained
undisputed.
11. Effect of separation de Art. 100 Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No.

facto, FC 127, FC 100 cf. 188289, August 20, 2014 The records of this case are replete
FC 239 with evidence that Leticia and David
had indeed separated for more than a
year and that reconciliation is highly
improbable. First, while actual
abandonment had not been proven, it
is undisputed that the spouses had
been living separately since 2003 when
David decided to go back to the
Philippines to set up his own business.
Second, Leticia heard from her friends
that David has been cohabiting with
Estrellita Martinez, who represented
herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha
Apolonio, who worked in the hospital
where David was once confined,
testified that she saw the name of
Estrellita listed as the wife of David in
the Consent for Operation form. Third
and more significantly, they had filed
for divorce and it was granted by the
California court in June 2005.
12. Effect of Partosa-Jo v. CA 216 SCRA As early as 1942, the private respondent
abandonment, FC 128 cf. Art. 128. If a spouse 693 had already rejected the petitioner,
FC 101 without just cause whom he denied admission to their
abandons the other or conjugal home in Dumaguete City
38
when she returned from

fails to comply with his Zamboanguita. The fact that she was
or her obligations to the not accepted by Jo demonstrates all too
family, the aggrieved clearly that he had no intention of
spouse may petition the resuming their conjugal relationship.
court for receivership, Apart form refusing to admit his
for judicial separation lawful wife to their conjugal home in
of property, of for Dumaguete City, Jo has freely
authority to be the sole admitted to cohabiting with other
administrator of the women and siring many children by
conjugal partnership them. It was his refusal to provide for
property, subject to the petitioner and their daughter that
such precautionary prompted her to file the actions against
conditions as the court him for support and later for
may impose. separation of the conjugal property, in
The obligations to the which actions, significantly, he even
family mentioned in the denied being married to her.
preceding paragraph
refer to martial,
parental or property
relations.
A spouse is deemed to
have abondoned the
other when he or she
has left the conjugal
dwelling without any
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
39
whereabouts shall be
prima facie presumed to
have no intention of
returning to the
conjugal dwelling.
12. Effect of Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. Article 101 of the Family Code must be
abandonment, FC 128 cf. Art. 128. If a spouse 188289, August 20, 2014 for a valid cause and the spouse is
FC 101 without just cause deemed to have abandoned the other
abandons the other or when he/she has left the conjugal
fails to comply with his dwelling without intention of
or her obligations to the returning. The intention of not
family, the aggrieved returning is prima facie presumed if
spouse may petition the the abandoning spouse failed to give
court for receivership, any information as to his or her
for judicial separation whereabouts within the period of three
of property, of for months from such abandonment.
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 martial,
parental or property
relations.
A spouse is deemed to
have abondoned the
other when he or she
has left the conjugal
40
dwelling without any

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.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Cabreza v Cabreza, GR 171260, Article 129 of the Family Code that the
FC 126, 129 Art. 129. Upon the September 11, 2009 same presupposes a situation where
dissolution of the there are other properties aside from
conjugal partnership the property subject of the motion that
regime, the following constitute the conjugal partnership.
procedure shall apply:
(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
41
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.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Heirs of Go v Servacio, GR The conjugal partnership of gains

FC 126, 129 Art. 126. The conjugal 157537, Sept. 7, 2011 established before and after the
partnership terminates: Ugalde v Ysasi, GR 130623, effectivity of the Family Code are
February 29, 2008 governed by the rules on Conjugal
(1) Upon the death of Partnership of Gains of the Family
either spouse; Code. Hence, any disposition of the
conjugal property after the dissolution
of the conjugal partnership must be
made only after the liquidation;
otherwise, the disposition is void.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Art. 129 Dino v Dino, GR 178044, The applicable law which shall govern
FC 126, 129 January 19, 2011 the liquidation of the properties owned
in common by the parties are the rules
on co-ownership under the New Civil
Code, which provides that the partition
may be made by agreement or judicial
proceedings and not in the same
proceeding for the declaration of
42
nullity of marriage.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Art. 129 Yu v Carpio, GR 189207, June A final decree must first be
FC 126, 129 15, 2011 obtained as regards the declaration
of nullity case before the issue on
support, custody of children, and
property relations may be resolved
by the court.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Art. 129 Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. In a regime of conjugal partnership of
FC 126, 129 183622, July 4, 2012 gains, the husband and the wife place
in a common fund the fruits of their
separate property as well as the income
from their work or industry and divide
equally upon dissolution of the
marriage the net gains and benefits
obtained by either spouse during the
marriage. However, nothing will be
returned to the guilty party in the
conjugal partnership regime, because
there is no separate property which
may be accounted for in the guilty
party’s favor.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Art. 129 Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No.

FC 126, 129 176492, October 20, 2014 Article 129 provides for the procedure
in case of dissolution of the conjugal
partnership regime, Article 147
specifically covers the effects of void
marriages on the spouses’ property
relations.
In the absence of proof to the contrary,

properties acquired while they lived
43
together shall be presumed to have

been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry, and shall be owned
by them in equal shares. For purposes
of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the
other party of any property shall be
deemed to have contributed jointly in
the acquisition thereof if the former's
efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and of the
household.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. Having established that Leticia and
FC 126, 129 Art. 126. The conjugal 188289, August 20, 2014 David had actually separated for at
partnership terminates: least one year, the petition for judicial
separation of absolute community of
(1) Upon the death of property should be granted.
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
44
138
13. Dissolution of CPG, Art. 129 Uy v Estate of Fernandez, G.R. Upon the termination of the conjugal
FC 126, 129 No. 200612, April 5, 2017 partnership of gains due to the death of
either spouse, the surviving spouse has
an actual and vested one-half
undivided share of the properties,
which does not consist of determinate
and segregated properties until
liquidation and partition of the
conjugal partnership.
13. Dissolution of CPG, Art. 126 Jimenez vs. Dy, G.R. No. Upon the death of Marcosa on October
FC 126, 129 Art. 129 218731, February 13, 2019 5, 1931, the conjugal nature of the
property was dissolved and the interest
of Sixto (surviving spouse), with
respect to his undivided one-half share
on the conjugal property goes to and
becomes vested on him.
Regime of separation of Old Civil Code Ugalde v Ysasi, GR 130623, Petitioner and respondent were
property Art. 119, 142, 175 February 29, 2008 married on 15 February 1951. The
applicable law at the time of their
(a) In the marriage marriage was the Old Civil Code
settlements, FC 143-146 which took effect on 30 August 1950.
(b) When mandatory, FC
103 & FC 130 The finality of the 6 June 1961 Order
(c) Reconciliation in legal approving the parties' separation of
separation, FC 66(2) property resulted in the termination of
the conjugal partnership of gains in
accordance with Article 175 of the FC.
property, 134 - 146
45
Thus, when the trial court decided

Special Proceedings case, the conjugal
partnership between petitioner and
respondent was already dissolved.
Regime of separation of Family Code Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. Any modification in the marriage
property Art. 66, 67, 128, 135, 188289, August 20, 2014 settlements must be made before the
136 celebration of marriage provided that
(a) In the marriage the modification is judicially approved
settlements, FC 143-146 and refers only to the instances
(b) When mandatory, FC provided in Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and
103 & FC 130 136 of the Family Code.
(c) Reconciliation in legal
separation, FC 66(2)
property, 134 - 146
Regime of separation of Art. 145 Estrella Abid-Babano vs. Each spouse in marriages covered by
property Executive Secretary G.R. No. the regime of complete separation of
201176, August 28, 2019 [en property may exercise complete
(a) In the marriage banc] dominion over his or her exclusive
settlements, FC 143-146 estate
(b) When mandatory, FC
103 & FC 130
(c) Reconciliation in legal
separation, FC 66(2)
property, 134 - 146
Property regime of unions Art. 147 Valdes v. QC RTC, G.R. No. In a void marriage, regardless of its
without marriage 122749, July 31, 1996 cause, the property relations of the
parties during the period of cohabitation
1. Unions under FC 147, is governed either by Article 147 or
6, 35, 36, 53 Article 148 of the Family Code. Article
46
147 of the Family Code applies to union

of parties who are legally capacitated
and not barred by any impediment to
contract marriage, but whose marriage
is nonetheless void
Property regime of unions Art. 147 Carino vs. Carino, GR 132539, The difference between 147 and 148 is
without marriage February 3, 2001 that wages and salaries earned by
either party during the cohabitation
1. Unions under FC 147, period will be split equally between
6, 35, 36, 53 them even if only one party
contributed in 147, whereas in 148
wages and salaries earned by each
party belong to him or her exclusively.
Here, pursuant to Art 147, Susan
Nicdao is entitled to half of the
remunerations and the other half
belong to the legal heirs of Santiago,
who are in this case, the children of
Susan Nicdao.
Property regime of unions Art. 147 Gonzales vs Gonzales, 478 Under the property regime of co-
without marriage SCRA 327 ownership, properties acquired by
both parties during their union in the
1. Unions under FC 147, absence of proof to the contrary are
6, 35, 36, 53 presumed to have been obtained
through the joint efforts of the parties
and will be owned by them in equal
shares.
Property regime of unions Art. 147 Diño v Diño, GR 178004, In this case, petitioner’s marriage to
without marriage January 19, 2011 respondent was declared void under
47
Article 36 of the Family Code and not

1. Unions under FC 147, under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what
6, 35, 36, 53 governs the liquidation of properties
owned in common by petitioner and
respondent are the rules on co-
ownership.
Property regime of unions Art. 147 Salas, Jr., v Aguila, G.R. No. Under Article 147 of the Family
without marriage 202370, SEP 23 2013 Code applies to the union of parties
who are legally capacitated and not
1. Unions under FC 147, barred by any impediment to
6, 35, 36, 53 contract marriage, but whose
marriage is nonetheless declared
void under Article 36 of the Family
Code, as in this case. Here, Salas
did not rebut this presumption. In a
similar case where the ground for
nullity of marriage was also
psychological incapacity, we held
that the properties acquired during
the union of the parties, as found
by both the RTC and the CA, would
be governed by co-ownership.
Property regime of unions Art. 147 Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. Under this property regime, property
without marriage 176492, October 20, 2014 acquired by both spouses through their
work and industry shall be governed
1. Unions under FC 147, by the rules on equal co-ownership.
6, 35, 36, 53 Any property acquired during the
union is prima facie presumed to have
been obtained through their joint
48
efforts. A party who did not participate

in the acquisition of the property shall
be considered as having contributed to
the same jointly if said party’s efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance
of the family household.
Property regime of unions Art. 147 People v XXX, GR 240441, Mere allegations that a man is
without marriage Dec. 4, 2019 married to a woman shall still be
proven by evidence. It is not
1. Unions under FC 147, imperative upon the courts to accept
6, 35, 36, 53 such allegation as a fact.
1. Unions under FC 147, Art. 147 Paterno v. Paterno, GR 213687, Aticle 147 did not make any distinction
6, 35, 36, 53 January 8, 2020 or make any qualification in terms of
the manner the property must be
acquired before the presumption of co-
ownership shall apply. Thus, it shall
be construed in the ordinary sense. The
property is deemed acquired by the
partie’s joint efforts, work or industry,
in equal shares, regardless if it was
purchased on installment or other
mode of payment.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Belcodero v. CA 227 SCRA Under both the old and new Civil
35, 37, 38 303 Code, all property of the marriage is
presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or
to the wife.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Agapay vs Agapay, 276 SCRA Where a woman who cohabited with a
married man fails to prove that she
49
35, 37, 38 340 contributed money to the purchase

price of a riceland, there is no basis to
justify her co-ownership over the same
—the riceland should revert to the
conjugal partnership property of the
man and his lawful wife.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Tumlos vs. Sps. Fernandez, A man and a woman who are not
35, 37, 38 G.R. No. 137650, Apr 12, 2000 legally capacitated to marry each other,
but who nonetheless live together
conjugally, may be deemed co-owners
of a property acquired during the
cohabitation only upon proof that each
made an actual contribution to its
acquisition.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Atienza vs.de Castro, G.R. No. A man and a woman who are not
35, 37, 38 1695698, Nov. 29, 2006 legally capacitated to marry each other,
but who nonetheless live together
conjugally, may be deemed co-owners
of a property acquired during the
cohabitation only upon proof that each
made an actual contribution to its
acquisition.
2. Unions under FC 148, Sec. 8(e) and (k) of RA Signey v SSS, GR No. 173582, Here, the minor illegitimate children of
35, 37, 38 8282 Jan. 28, 2008 Signey Sr. with Ginalyn and Rodelyn
are the only qualified beneficiaries for
the death benefits of the late Signey Sr.
Since Yolanda was not entitled, Gina
was also not entitled, and Editha was
also not entitled since she was with
another man already. Hence, the two
illegitimate children are the one’s
50
entitled to the death benefits.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 147 Borromeo vs Descallar, GR No. The rule that co-ownership applies to a
35, 37, 38 159310, Feb. 24, 2009 man and a woman living exclusively
Heirs of Maramag vs De with each other as husband and wife
Guzman, GR 181132, June 5, without the benefit of marriage, but
2009 otherwise capacitated to marry each
other, does not apply between
respondent and Jambrich.
2. Unions under FC 148, Lacbayan v Samoy, GR 165427, While it is true that the complaint
35, 37, 38 March 21, 2011 involved here is one for partition, the
same is premised on the existence or
non-existence of co-ownership
between the parties. Petitioner insists
she is a co-owner pro indiviso of the
five real estate properties based on the
transfer certificates of title covering the
subject properties. Respondent
maintains otherwise. Indubitably,
therefore, until and unless this issue of
co-ownership is definitely and finally
resolved, it would be premature to
effect a partition of the disputed
properties.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Go- Bangayan v Bangayan, If one of the parties is validly married
35, 37, 38 G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013 to another, his or her share in the co-
ownership shall accrue to the absolute
community of conjugal partnership
existing in such valid marriage. If the
party who acted in bad faith is not
validly married to another, his or her
share shall be forfeited
51
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Lavadia vs. Heirs of Luna, G.R. In such a situation, whoever alleges co-
35, 37, 38 No. 171914, July 23, 2014 ownership carried the burden of proof
to confirm such fact. To establish co-
ownership, therefore, it became
imperative for the petitioner to offer
proof of her actual contributions in the
acquisition of property. Her mere
allegation of co-ownership, without
sufficient and competent evidence,
would warrant no relief in her favor.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Tambuyat v. Tambuyat, G.R. If she were the sole purchaser of the
35, 37, 38 No. 202805, March 23, 2015 property, it would only be logical and
natural for her to require that her name
be placed on the deed of sale as the
vendee, and not as mere witness.
2. Unions under FC 148, Art. 148 Fullido v Grilli, G.R. No. If one of the parties is validly married
35, 37, 38 215014, February 29, 2016 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.
52
53

UST CLR1 Week 4 Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UST CLR1 Week 4 Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UST Petition Class - CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1

EVANGELISTA, Robert Kevin B.

CASE DOCTRINES FOR WEEK 4

must be proof that the value of the

written consent of the other spouse. In

dissolution of the conjugal partnership

accordance with Art 175 of the Civil

their common children. Since the

Dino v Dino, GR 178044, Petitioner’s marriage to respondent

Absolute community of Yu v Reyes-Carpio, GR If the Court eventually finds that the

4. Waiver after marriage,

6. What constitutes ACP,

(a) All property at time of

8. Exclusions from ACP,

9. Charges upon ACP,

(a) Family expenses cf.

(b) Debts of spouses, Art.

(c) Subsidiary liabilities,

(e) Gambling losses, FC

(f) Other charges, Art. 94

10. Administration and

(a) Joint administration,

(b) Sole administration

(1) incapacity, FC 96 (2)

(c) Disposition and

11. Effect of separation de

proceedings for court

13. Dissolution of ACP,

(a) Death, FC 103 cf.

14. Effects of dissolution

(a) Liquidation procedure,

gains 183622, July 4, 2012 separation, the severance of the

surviving spouse is entitled to her

a. Presumption of CPG, Dewara v Lamela, GR 179010, The separation-in-fact between the

Meanwhile, as in any other property

a. Presumption of CPG, Art 116, FC Malabanan vs. Malabanan,

(3) That which is

(4) That which is

his or her separate property.

(4) That which is

does not operate if there is no showing

(2) That which each

(3) That which is

(4) That which is

(1) That which is

(2) That which each

(3) That which is

(4) That which is

to the estate of the deceased Judge

(2) That which each

(3) That which is

(4) That which is

(2) That which each

(3) That which is

(4) That which is

or her exclusive any manner, or for any purpose. That

donations for charity.

belong to the conjugal partnership,

7. Improvements on CPG Art. 120 Padilla v Padilla, October 4,

partnership, the widow is also the

Here, no actual benefit may be proved.

There is no presumption that the

owned property cannot be enforced