MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT
Civil Registry and ROD before it
(ART. 74 to 81 of FC)
ARTICLE 74 (Intro & Definition of MS)
Property relations between husband
wife shall be governed in thefollowing
order:
(MPL)
o Marriage settlement executed
BEFORE MARRIAGE
o Provisions of this Code
o Local Custom
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT
(CFGR)
1. Contract entered into by the spouses
2. Fixing the matrimonial property regime
3. That should Govern during the
existence of the marriage
ARTICLE 75 (TYPES & DEFAULT OF Property regime)
1st Sentence
The spouses may, in the marriage agree on
any property regime (even OTHER than
the 3 Property Regime)
TYPES OF PROPERTY REGIME:
(ACAA)
o ACP
- Absolute Community Property
o CPG
- Conjugal Partnership of Gains
o Absolute Separation of Property
o ANY OTHER REGIME
- so long as it is not contrary to
laws, moral or public policy
2nd Sentence
In the absence of a marriage settlement or
when the regime upon is VOID, the system
of ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY PROPERTY as
established in this Code shall govern.
NOTE: ART. 103 & 130
REQUISITES FOR MS:
 Executed BEFORE the celebration of
marriage (ART. 76)
 Must not contain provisions contrary to
laws, moral or public policys
 Modification must be in Writing
 Signed by the parties
 MS should be Registered to the Local
becomes binding to a third person
NOTE:
If one spouse died intestate, MANDATORY
& REGIME shall govern the property relations
of the spouses.
ARTICLE 76 (Validity of Modification in MS)
In order for modification to be VALID, it
must be made BEFORE the celebration of
marriage, subject to provisions under Art.
66, 67, 128, 135 & 136.
Pana v. Heirs of Juanite,
G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012
(ART. 76) RULING:
GENERAL RULE:
No modification allowed during marriage Article 121 allows payment of the criminal
indemnities imposed on his wife, Melecia,
EXCEPTION: out of the partnership assets even before
Post-marriage modification of such settlements can these are liquidated. Indeed, it states that
take place only where: such indemnities may be enforced
(a) the absolute community or conjugal against the partnership assets after the
partnership was dissolved and liquidated upon responsibilities enumerated in the
a decree of legal separation; preceding article have been covered. No
(b) the spouses who were legally separated prior liquidation of those assets is
reconciled and agreed to revive their former required. This is not altogether unfair
property regime (Article 67)
(c) judicial separation of property had been had
since Article 122 states that at the time of
liquidation of the partnership, such
offending spouse shall be charged for
on the ground that a spouse abandons the other
what has been paid for the purposes
without just cause or fails to comply with his
above-mentioned.
obligations to the family;
(d) there was judicial separation of property
under Article 135; ARTICLE 77
(e) the spouses jointly filed a petition for the
(Requisites of MS)
voluntary dissolution of their absolute
community or conjugal partnership of gains.
1 st
Sentence
None of these circumstances exists in the case
of Efren and Melecia The MS and any
modification thereof shall be in WRITING,
SIGNED BY THE PARTIES and EXECUTED
BEFORE THE CELEBRATION OF THE
MARRIAGE.
2nd Sen.
They shall not prejudice third persons
UNLESS they are registered in the Civil
Registry where the marriage contract is
recorded as well as proper registries of
property.
ARTICLE 78 (MS made by a Minor)
MS made by minor – signed by persons
made parties in the marriage (Art. 14)
ARTICLE 79 (Civil interdiction)
For persons sentenced with civil
interdiction, their guardian must be made a
party to the MS for its validity.
ARTICLE 80 (Phil. Law governs MS w/ exceptions)
In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a
marriage settlement, the property relations of
 ISSUES:
the spouses shall be governed by Philippine
laws, regardless of the place of the  WON, an alien husband can nullify a lease contract entered into
by his Filipina wife bought during their marriage
celebration of the marriage and their
residence.  WON, Benjamin’s consent is necessary

This rule shall not apply:  NO. The rule is clear and inflexible:
(1) Where both spouses are aliens; aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private
(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of lands in the Philippines, save only in constitutionally
recognized exceptions.
contracts affecting property not situated
in the Philippines and executed in the There is no rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition,
country where the property is located;  NO, in any
as more andevent,
morehe had attempt
aliens and hastono capacity or
circumvent thepersonality
provision byto
question
trying the lands
to own subsequent
through lease of the Boracay property by his
another.
and
wife on the theory that in so doing, he was merely exercising the
(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of prerogative
The Court find of and
a husband
so hold in respect
that of conjugal
Benjamin property.
has no right To
to nullify
contracts entered into in the Philippines sustain
the such a theory
Agreement would countenance
of Lease indirect
between Joselyn andcontroversion
petitioner.
but affecting property situated in a of the constitutional
Benjamin, prohibition.
being an alien, is absolutely prohibited from acquiring
private and public lands in the Philippines. Considering that
foreign country whose laws require If the property
Joselyn appearedwere to to
bebe
thedeclared conjugal,
designated this in
"vendee" would accord
the Deed of
different formalities for its extrinsic the
Salealien
of saidhusband a substantial
property, she acquiredinterest
SOLEand right over thereto.
OWNERSHIP the land,
validity. as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or
disposition.
This Thisifiswea sustain
is true even right that the Constitution
Benjamin’s claim thatdoes not permit
he provided the
him tofor
funds have.
such acquisition. By entering into such contract knowing that
it was illegal,
 no implied trust was created in his favor;
 no reimbursement for his expenses can be allowed; and
 no declaration can be made that the subject property was
part of the conjugal/community property of the spouses.

Beumer v. Amores
ISSUE:

 Whether or not Beumer is entitled for reimbursement of the value of

the lots based on equity.
RULING:
 The petition lacks merit
Article 80 of the Family code provides that in the absence of contrary
stipulation in marriage settlement, Philippine law will govern the
property relations of the spouses regardless of the place where the
marriage is celebrated.

In any event, the Court cannot, even on the grounds of equity,

grant reimbursement to petitioner given that he acquired no right
whatsoever over the subject properties by virtue of its
unconstitutional purchase.
Borromeo vs Descallar
SC’s ruling was based in the case of Elena Buenaventura Muller v.
Helmut Muller.

It held that a foreigner cannot seek reimbursement on the ground

of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought
the property despite the prohibition against foreign ownership of
Philippine land enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution which reads:

Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private

lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands
of the public domain.

Needless to state, the purpose of the prohibition is to conserve

the national patrimony and it is this policy which the Court is duty-
bound to protect. Surely, a contract that violates the Constitution
and the law is null and void, vests no rights, creates no
obligations and produces no legal effect at all.

‘MEMO CUM ALTERIUS DETER DETREMENTO PROTEST"

(ART.22)
Matthews v. Taylor
  WON, Jambrich has no title to the properties in question and may not
transfer and assign any rights and interest in favor of the petitioner ARTICLE 82 (Requisites of DPN)
NO, the evidence clearly shows that as between respondent and
Donation made for the reason of
Jambrich, it was Jambrich who possesses the financial capacity to marriage are those which are:
acquire the properties in dispute. At the time of the acquisition of the
properties, Jamrich was the source of funds used to purchase the three 1. Made Before its celebration, in
parcels of land, and to construct the house. Jambrich was the owner of
the properties in question, but his name was deleted in the Deed of consideration of the same, and
Absolute Sale because of legal constraints. Nevertheless, his signature
remained in the deed of sale where he signed as a buyer. Thus, Jambrich
2. In Favor of one or both the future
has all authority to transfer all his rights, interest and participation over spouses
the subject properties to petitioner by virtue of Deed of Assignment.
NOTE:
Furthermore, the fact that the disputed properties were acquired during the
couple’s cohabitation does not help the respondent. The rule of co-ownership  Non- happening of the marriage is ground
applies to a man and a woman living exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, but otherwise for revocation.
capacitated to marry each other does not apply. o It is not automatically revoked;
At the case at bar, respondent was still legally married to another when o There must be an ACTION FOR
she and Jambrich lived together. In such an adulterous relationship and
no co-ownership exists between the parties. It is necessary for each of REVOCATION, which is done
the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of
property in order to able to lay claim to any portion of it. within the prescription required.
 WON, the registration of the properties in the name of respondents make him
the owner thereof
NO, It is settled rule that registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. It is only a means of confirming the existence with notice
to the world at large.
SERRANO v. SOLOMON
The mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of ISSUES:
the property. Thus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the  WON, petitioner is entitled for the one half of respondent’s
disputed properties in her name does not necessarily, conclusively
and absolutely make her the owner. property in accordance to the term od deed of donation
propter nuptias
The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply to
respondent.
NO, the natural guardians cannot get said share. Insofar, as
A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet, and that it is perfect, said share is concerned, the alleged donation to them
absolute and indefeasible. EXCEPTION to this rule is when the cannot be valid donation propter nuptias because said
transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject share was not given to one of the spouses.
properties for a valuable consideration.
 WON it might be considered a donation inter vivos
 WON, Section 7, Article XII can be invoked in the case at bar
While it is true that the fundamental law explicitly prohibits non- NO, because it was never accepted by the donee either in
Filipinos from acquiring or holding title to private lands, except only the same instrument or donation or in a separate document
by way of legal succession or if the acquisition was made by a former
natural-born citizen. as required by law.

However, Applying the decision in United Church Board for World  WON, the donation be regarded a donation mortis causa,
Ministries, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, viz.:

[W]hile the acquisition and the purchase of (sic) Wilhelm Jambrich of

the properties under litigation [were] VOID AB INITIO since [they were]
contrary to the Constitution of the Philippines, he being a foreigner,
yet, the acquisition of these properties by plaintiff who is a Filipino
citizen from him, has cured the flaw in the original
transaction and the title of the transferee is valid.
NO, because for a donation to take effect after the death of
the donor, is equivalent to a disposition of a property by last
will. The deed of donation did not have the formalities of a
will, aside from the fact that the donor is still alive

ARTICLE 83
ARTICLE 81 (Certain conditions to MS) TITLES III BOOK III
Donations in the MS shall be rendered
VOID if the marriage did not push through. ARTIICLE 84 (1/5 Donation Rule)
However, those stipulations that do not
If the spouses agree upon a property
depend upon the celebration of marriage
regime other than absolute community
shall remain VALID.
property, they CANNOT donate more than
ONE-FIFTH of their present property.
ANY EXCESS SHALL BE RENDERED
VOID.

Donations of future spouses shall be

governed by TESTAMENTARY
SUCCESSION & FORMALITIES OF
WILLS.
DONATIONS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE
(Art. 82 to 87) ARTICLE 85 (ENCUMBRANCES IS VALID W/ Conditions)
ARTICLE 86 (Revocation of donation by Donor)
Instances where donation by reason of marriage
may be revoke by the donor:

 If the marriage is not celebrated or

judicially declared void ab initio except
donations made in the marriage
settlements, which shall be governed by
Article 81; - (5 YEARS)
 When the marriage takes place without
the consent of the parents or guardian,
as required by law; (5 YEARS)
 When the marriage is annulled, and the
donee acted in bad faith; (5 YEARS)
 Upon legal separation, the donee being
the guilty spouse; (5 YEARS)
 If it is with a resolutory condition and the
condition is complied with; (5 YEARS)
 When the donee has committed an act of
ingratitude as specified by the provisions
of the Civil Code on donations in general.
(1 YR)

ARTICLE 87 (