of property govern the property relations between the spouses?
A: Only in the following cases:
1. When it is expressly provided for in the marriage settlement
2. When it is so decreed by a competent court
3. Mandatory regime of complete separation of property
Q: In what ways can there be judicial separation of property?
A: Judicial separation of property may either be:
a. voluntary
b. for sufficient cause
Q: What are the sufficient causes for judicial separation of property?
A: CJ-LASA
1. Civil interdiction of the spouse of petitioner;
2. Judicial declaration of absence;
3. Loss of parental authority as decreed by the court;
4. Abandonment or failure to comply with family obligation;
5. Administrator spouse has abused authority;
6. Separation in fact for one year and reconciliation is highly improbable. (Art.
135, FC)
Note: In cases provided in 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.
Q: What are the effects of judicial separation of property between spouses?
A:
1. The absolute community or conjugal partnership is dissolved;
2. The liability of the spouses to creditors shall be solidary with their separate properties;
3. Mutual obligation to support each other continues;
XPN: When there is legal separation 4. Rights previously acquired by creditors are not
prejudiced.
Q; How and in what instances can the property regime that existed between the spouses before the separation of property be revived?
A: Spouses may, in the same proceedings where separation of property was decreed, file a motion existed between them before the separation of property in any of the following instances:
a. When the civil interdiction terminates b. When absentee spouse reappears c. When the court, being satisfied G. REGIME OF SEPARATION OF PROPERTY Q: What governs the regime of separation of property?
A:
1. Marriage settlement
2. Family Code in suppletory character. (Art. 149, FC)
Q: What are the kinds of separation of property?
A:
1. As to extent:
a. Total
b. Partial – In this case, the property not agreed upon as separate shall pertain to the absolute community.
2. As to kinds of property:
a. Present property b. Future property
c. Both present and future property Q: What are the rights of the spouses under the regime of separation of property?
A:
1. Each spouse shall own, dispose of, administer, possess, and enjoy his or her own separate property, without need of the consent of the other.
2. Each spouse shall own 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.
Q: What are the liabilities for family expenses of the spouses under the regime of separation of property?
A: GR: Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion to their income.
XPN: In case of insufficiency or default thereof, to the current market value of their separate properties.
H. PROPERTY REGIME OF UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE Q: What is the property regime of unions without marriage?
A:
ART. 147 ART. 148
Applicability
1. No legal impediment to marry;
2. Void marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Presence of legal impediment:
1. Adulterous relationships 2. Bigamous/polygamous marriages 3. Incestuous void marriages under Art 37
4. Void marriages by reason of public policy (Art. 38) Salaries & wages
Owned in equal shares Separately owned by the parties. If any is married, his/her salary pertains to the CPG of the legitimate marriage.
Property exclusively acquired Belongs to party
upon proof of acquisition through exclusive funds Belongs to such party Property acquired by both through their work or industry
Governed by rules of co-ownership Owned in common in proportion to their respective contributions
Presumption Property acquired while living together presumed
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and owned by them in equal shares.
If one party did not participate in acquisition:
presumed to have contributed through care and maintenance of family and household (Buenaventura
v. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 127358, Mar. 31, 2005)
No presumption of joint acquisition.
Actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common proportion.
However, their contributions are presumed equal, in the absence if proof to the contrary
Forfeiture When only one is in GF, share of party in BF in the
co-ownership be forfeited in favor of:
1. their common children 2. innocent party
in default of / waiver by any/all common children, or by
their descendants
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his/her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the ACP or CPG
existing in the marriage.
If the party who acted in BF is not validly married to another or if both parties are in BF, such share be forfeited in manner provided in last par of Art. 147 Proof of actual contribution
Not necessary Necessary
Note: For as long as it is proven that property was acquired during marriage, the presumption of conjugality will attach regardless in whose name the property is registered.
The presumption is not rebutted by the mere fact that the certificate of title of the property or the tax declaration is in the name of one of the spouses. (Villanueva v. CA, G.R. No. 143286, Apr. 14, 2004)
Q: What property relation governs in case marriage is declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity?
A: The property relation between the parties is governed by Art. 147 of the FC. Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's "efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household." Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couple's separate property are not included in the co-ownership.
Q: Josefina’s petition for nullity of her marriage to Eduardo was granted on the ground of existence of a prior marriage. She now asserts that since her marriage to Eduardo is void, their property relation is to be governed by the rules on co-ownership under Art. 148 of the FC and not by Art.144 of the Civil Code. In this regime, Eduardo has no share at all in the properties since no proof was adduced by him as regards his participation in their purchase. However, she did not prove that she acquired the properties using her personal funds and prior to her cohabitation with Eduardo.
Is her contention correct?
A: No. Art. 148 of the FC does not apply since, in said article, a co-ownership may ensue in case of cohabitation where, for instance, one party has a pre-existing valid marriage, provided that the parties prove their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry and only to the extent of their proportionate interest thereon. Petitioner failed to adduce preponderance of evidence that she contributed money, property or industry in the acquisition of the subject property and, hence, is not a co-owner of the property. Since the subject property was acquired during the subsistence of the first marriage of Eduardo, under normal circumstances, the same should be presumed to be conjugal property of Eduardo and Josefina.
(Francisco v. Master Iron Works Construction Corp., G.R. No. 151967. Feb. 16, 2005)
Q: Francisco and Erminda’s marriage was nullified by the trial court due to psychological incapacity.
He did not contest the decree of nullity but he assailed the division in the properties which was contained in the decree. He asserted that the properties were acquired through his efforts and that she had no contribution whatsoever in their acquisition and maintenance; hence, she should not be entitled to a joint share in their properties.
Is Francisco’s contention correct?
A: No. The property relation between the parties is governed by Art. 147 of the FC. Under this article, there is a presumption that the properties which they acquired during their cohabitation were acquired through their joint efforts, work or industry. It further provides that a party who did not participate in the acquisition thereof shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if his or her efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Note: In this case, Francisco himself testified that his wife was not a plain housewife but one who helped him in managing the family's business. Hence, Erminda is rightfully entitled to a joint share in their properties.
(Gonzales v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 159521, Dec. 16, 2005) Q: Romeo and Juliet lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. During their cohabitation, they acquired a house. When they broke up, they executed an agreement where he agreed to leave the house provided Juliet will pay his entire share in their properties. She failed to do so but she also ignored his demand for her to vacate. Romeo sued her for ejectment which the court granted. Was the court correct in granting the same?
A: No. Under Art. 147 of the FC, the property is co-owned by the parties. Under said provision, in the absence of proof to the contrary, any property acquired by common-law spouses during their cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained thru their joint efforts and is owned by them in equal shares. Their property relationship in such a case is essentially governed by the rules on co-ownership. Thus, Romeo cannot seek the ejectment of Juliet therefrom. As a co-owner, she is as much entitled to enjoy its possession and ownership as him. (Abing v. CA,G.R. No. 146294, Jul. 31, 2006) Q: In 1973, Mauricio, a Filipino pensioner of the US Government, contracted a bigamous marriage with Erlinda, despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living. In 1975, Mauricio and Erlinda jointly bought a parcel of rice land with the title being placed jointly in their names. Shortly thereafter, they purchased another property (a house and lot) which was placed in her name alone as the buyer. In 1981, Mauricio died and Carol promptly filed an action against Erlinda to recover both the rice land and the house and lot, claiming them to be conjugal property of the first marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late Mauricio were co-owners of the rice land, and with respect to the house and lot she claims she is the exclusive owner. Assuming she fails to prove that she had
actually used her own money in either purchase, how do you decide the case?
A: Carol's action to recover both the rice land and the house and lot is well-founded. Both are conjugal property, in view of the failure of Erlinda, the wife in a bigamous marriage, to prove that her own money was used in the purchases made. The Supreme Court in a case applied Art. 148, Family Code, despite the fact that the husband's death took place prior to the effectivity of said law. However, even under Art. 144, Civil Code, the same conclusion would have been reached in view of the bigamous nature of the second marriage. (1998 Bar Question)
Q: Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, Luis is gainfully employed, Rizza is not employed, stays at home, and takes charge of the household chores.
After living together for a little over twenty years, Luis was able to save from his salary earnings during that period the amount of P200,000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A house and lot worth P500,000.00 was recently purchased for the same amount by the couple. Of the P500.000.00 used by the common-law spouses to purchase the property, P200.000.00 had come from the sale of palay harvested from the hacienda owned by Luis and P300,000.00 from the rentals of a building belonging to Rizza. In fine, the sum of P500.000.00 had been part of the fruits received during the period of cohabitation from their separate property, a car worth P100.000.00 being used by the common-law spouses, was donated just months ago to Rizza by her parents.
Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabitation, and they ask you to give them your legal advice on how, under the law should the bank deposit of P200,000.00 the house and lot valued at P500.000.00 and the car worth P100.000.00 be allocated to them?
A: Art. 147 of the Family Code provides in part that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules of co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained
by their joint efforts, worker industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. 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.
Thus:
1. The wages and salaries of Luis in the amount of P200,000.00 shall be divided equally between Luis and Rizza.
2. The house and lot valued at P500.000.00 having been acquired by both of them through work or industry shall be divided between them in proportion to their respective contribution, in consonance with the rules on co-ownership. Hence, Luis gets 2\5 while Rizza gets 3\5 of P500.000.00.
3. The car worth P100,000.00 shall be exclusively owned by Rizza, the same having been donated to her by her parents. (1997 Bar Question)
Q: In 1989, Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age, cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30) years of age. While living together, they acquired from their combined earnings a parcel of riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of age.
While living together, Rico was a salaried employee and Mabel kept house for Rico and did full-time household chores for him. During their cohabitation, a parcel of coconut land was acquired by Rico from his savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel separated. Rico then met and married Letty, a single woman twenty-six (26) years of age.
During the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought a mango orchard out of her own personal earnings.
1. Who would own the riceland, and what property relations governs the ownership? Explain.
2. Who would own the coconut land, and what property relations governs the ownership? Explain.
3. Who would own the mango orchard, and what property elations governs the ownership? Explain.
A:
1. Rico and Cora are the co-owners of the riceland. The relations is that of
co-ownership (Art. 147, Family Code, first paragraph).
Addendum: However, after Rico's marriage to Letty, the half interest of Rico in the riceland will then become absolute community property of Rico and Letty.
2. Rico is the exclusive owner of the coconut land. The relation is a sole/single proprietorship (Art. 148. Family Code, first paragraph is applicable, and not Art. 147 Family Code).
Addendum: However, after Rico's marriage to Letty, the coconut land of Rico will then become absolute community property of Rico and Letty.) 3. Rico and Letty are the co-owners. The
relations is the Absolute Community of Property (Arts, 75, 90 and 91, Family Code).(1992 Bar Question)
VI. THE FAMILY
A. THE FAMILY AS AN INSTITUTION Q: What is included in family relations?
A:
1. Between husband and wife 2. Between parents and children
3. Among other ascendants and descendants 4. Among brothers and sisters, whether of the
full or half blood. (Art. 150, FC) Q: What governs family relations?
A: Family relations are governed by the law. No custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect (Art. 149, FC).
Note: Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, the sanctity of marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise affirmed by our statutes as a special contract of permanent union. Accordingly, the Court has had little qualms with penalizing judicial employees for their dalliances with married persons or for their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.(Concerned Employee v. Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564. November 23, 2004)
Q: What are the requisites before a suit between members of the same family may prosper?
A:
1. Earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made;
2. Such efforts failed;
3. The fact that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but the same have failed appears in the verified complaint or petition..
Q: In a complaint filed by Manolo against his brother, Rodolfo, it was alleged that the case "xxx passed through the Barangay and no settlement was forged between the plaintiffs and defendant as a result of which Certification to File Action was issued xxx". Rodolfo moved to dismiss for failure to comply with a condition precedent - that earnest efforts for an amicable settlement among the parties had been exerted but that none was reached. Decide.
A: The case will prosper. There was in fact substantial compliance with Art. 151 of the Family Code since the spouses alleged in the complaint for ejectment that the case "xxx passed through the Barangay and no settlement was forged between the plaintiffs and defendant as a result of which Certification to File Action was issued by Barangay 97, Zone 8, District I, Tondo, Manila xxx". It bears stressing that under Sec. 412 (a) of R.A. 7160, no complaint involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be instituted or filed directly in court for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the parties and no settlement was reached.
Moreover, the phrase "members of the same family" found in Art. 151 of the Family Code must be construed in relation to Art. 150 thereof.
(Martinez, et al. v. Martinez, G.R. No. 162084. Jun.
28, 2005)
Note: A sister-in-law or a brother-in-law is not covered by these two provisions. Being an exception to the general rule, Art. 151 must be strictly construed.
(Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, Nov. 26, 1970) B. THE FAMILY HOME
Q: What is meant by family home (FH) and how is it constituted?
A: It is the dwelling house where the husband and wife and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated; it is constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family (Art. 152, FC).
Q: Can FH be constituted on a house constructed on a land belonging to another?
A: No. The land where the house is erected is an integral part of the home and the home should be permanent in character.
Note: A house constructed on rented land or by tolerance of the owner is not a permanent improvement on the land and the home will thus be temporary.
Q: What are the exceptions to the rule that the FH
Q: What are the exceptions to the rule that the FH