Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Property Relations - General, Donation, Absolute Community,

Property Relations - General, Donation, Absolute Community,

Ratings: (0)|Views: 670|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





GENERAL PROVISIONSArt. 74. The property relationship between husband and wife shall be governed inthe following order:(1) By marriage settlements executed before the marriage;(2) By the provisions of this Code; and(3) By the local custom. (118)Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regimeof absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation ofproperty, or any other regime. In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when theregime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property asestablished in this Code shall govern. (119a)Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, itmust be made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions ofArticles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136. (121)Art. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in writing,signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of the marriage. They shallnot prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry wherethe marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties.(122a)Art. 78. A minor who according to law may contract marriage may also execute his orher marriage settlements, but they shall be valid only if the persons designated inArticle 14 to give consent to the marriage are made parties to the agreement, subjectto the provisions of Title IX of this Code. (120a)Art. 79. For the validity of any marriage settlement executed by a person upon whoma sentence of civil interdiction has been pronounced or who is subject to any otherdisability, it shall be indispensable for the guardian appointed by a competent courtto be made a party thereto. (123a)Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the propertyrelations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the placeof the celebration of the marriage and their residence.This rule shall not apply:(1) Where both spouses are aliens;(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated inthe Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located; and(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require differentformalities for its extrinsic validity. (124a)Art. 81. Everything stipulated in the settlements or contracts referred to in thepreceding articles in consideration of a future marriage, including donations betweenthe prospective spouses made therein, shall be rendered void if the marriage doesnot take place. However, stipulations that do not depend upon the celebration of themarriages shall be valid. (125a)
Collector of Internal Revenue
 , petitionervs
Douglas Fisher and Bettina Fisher, and The Court of Tax Appeals
 , respondents.28 January 1961
Walter Stevenson (born in Phils, of British parents, married in Mnla in 1909to British subject Beatrice Mauricia Stevenson) died on Feb1951 in Sn Francisco, Cali.,in permanent residence established with wife. He instituted his wife, who laterassigned all her rights and interests to Fisher spouses in Dec 1952, as sole heiress toreal & personal properties acquired by them while residing in Phil.Total gross of assets was P130,792.83. Ancillary administration proceedingsin the Court of 1
Instance of Mnla were instituted to settle the estate in thePhilippines. Ian Murray Scott was appointed ancillary administrator of theestate. He filed a preliminary inheritance and tax return with the reservationof having the properties declared finally appraised at values 6mos. after thedeath of Stevenson.On Sept 1952, estate and inheritance tax return was amended to avail of theright granted by
section 91 of NIR Code.
There was a change in price pershare of stock, the ancillary administrator based it on the quotation of thestock obtaining at the San Francisco Stock Exchange. He also made claim todeductions for funeral expenses, judicial expenses and others. On Sept 1953,he filed a second amended estate and inheritance tax return. It containednew claims for additional exemptions and deductions: 4,000 deduction fromgross estate of decedent provided by
Sec.861, no.4, US Fedl Internl Rev.Code,
made allowable by way of reciprocity granted by
Sec.122, NIR Code);
other exemptions granted by reciprocity proviso. Refund of amount of 15,259.83 allegedly overpaid was requested by the estate and denied by the
Collector. Pursuant to
Act No.1125,
action commenced in Court of 1
Instance was forwarded to Court of Tax Appeals.
1. WON, one-half of the net estate should be deducted in determining thetaxable net estate of the decedent as Beatrice Mauricia’s share in accordancewith our law on conjugal partnership and
section 89 of the NIR Code
WON estate can avail of inheritance and estate taxes on shares of stock inMindanao Mother Lode Mines, Inc., granted by reciprocity proviso in
sec122, NIR
3. WON estate is entitled to 4,000 deduction allowed by
sec861, US FIRC,
inrelation to
sec122, NIR
4. WON real estate properties of decedent and shares of stock were correctlyappraised5. WON estate is entitled to deductions for judicial, administration, funeralexpenses and real estate taxes and amount representing indebtednessincurred by decedent during his lifetimes6. WON estate is entitled to payment of interest of amt. it claims to haveoverpaid the gov’t and to be refundable to it.
Decision affirmed with modifications.
Yes. In the absence of ante-nuptial agreement, the contracting partiesare presumed to have adopted the system of conjugal partnership as tothe properties acquired during their marriage. Since the marriage tookplace in 1909, Article 1325( not Art.124 of NCC which became effectiveonly in 1950), adhering to thenationality theoryof determining theproperty relation of spouses where one is a foreigner and there are noprior arrangements is the applicable law. However, in the instant case, both spouses are foreigners who married in the Philippines. Therefore,The law determining the Stevenson property relation is the English law,which must be presumed to be the same as our law since there is anabsence of proof otherwise (processual presumption, p699). Moreimportantly, property relations of spouses as distinguished fromsuccessional rights of spouses is governed differently by the specificand express provisions of Title VI, Chapter I of NCC.
No. There is no
reciprocity between the Philippines and the stateof California in that while the former exempts payment of both estateand inheritance taxes on intangible properties, the latter only exemptsthe payment of inheritance.
Amount under the Fed’l Estate Tax Law is in the nature of a deduction,not of an exemption regarding which reciprocity can’t be claimed under
No. Respondents contend that the fair market value should be theassessed values appearing in the tax rolls 6months after death ofStevenson, pursuant to
sec91, NIR
. However, properties are required to be appraised at their fair market value and the assessed value thereofshall be considered as their fair market value only when evidence to thecontrary hasn’t been shown.The situs of the shares of the stock forpurposes of taxation, being located in the Phils and sought to be taxedin this jurisdiction, consistent with the exercise of our govt’s taxingauthority, their fair market value should be fixed on the basis of theprice prevailing on our country. However, since the said shares of stockcommanded a lesser value at Manila Stock Exchange six months afterdeath of Stevenson, the testimony of Atty. Gibbs contributed to the SC’sreversal of Tax Court and holding the value of a share in said miningcompany in the Phil market as P.325 as claimed by respondents.5.Yes. These have been considered deductible by the Tax Court. p706-707
No, deduction has to be allowed only insofar as the Philippine probatecourt has not approved this particular indebtedness of the decedent,such approval is necessary. There is a regular administration undercontrol of the court where claims must be presented and approved andexpenses of administration allowed before deductions from the estatecan be authorized. Another reason: According to
sec89, letter d of NIR
 ,allowable deduction is only to the extent of the PORTION of theindebtedness which is equivalent to the proportion that the estate in thePhilippines bears to the total estate wherever situated. Since there is nostatement of the value of the estate situated outside the Phils, or thatthere exists no such properties outside the Phils, no part of theindebtedness can be allowed to be deducted.DONATIONSREQUISITES FOR DONATIONSArt. 82. Donations by reason of marriage are those which are made before itscelebration, in consideration of the same, and in favor of one or both of the futurespouses. (126)Art. 83. These donations are governed by the rules on ordinary donations establishedin Title III of Book III of the Civil Code, insofar as they are not modified by thefollowing articles. (127a)
Art. 84. If the future spouses agree upon a regime other than the absolute communityof property, they cannot donate to each other in their marriage settlements more thanone-fifth of their present property. Any excess shall be considered void.Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentarysuccession and the formalities of wills. (130a)Art. 85. Donations by reason of marriage of property subject to encumbrances shall be valid. In case of foreclosure of the encumbrance and the property is sold for lessthan the total amount of the obligation secured, the donee shall not be liable for thedeficiency. If the property is sold for more than the total amount of said obligation,the donee shall be entitled to the excess. (131a)Art. 86. A donation by reason of marriage may be revoked by the donor in thefollowing cases:(1) If the marriage is not celebrated or judicially declared void ab initio exceptdonations made in the marriage settlements, which shall be governed by Article 81;(2) When the marriage takes place without the consent of the parents or guardian, asrequired by law;(3) When the marriage is annulled, and the donee acted in bad faith;(4) Upon legal separation, the donee being the guilty spouse;(5) If it is with a resolutory condition and the condition is complied with;(6) When the donee has committed an act of ingratitude as specified by theprovisions of the Civil Code on donations in general. (132a)Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, betweenthe spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which thespouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibitionshall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a validmarriage. (133a)
Jorge Domalagan v. Carlos Bolifer (
Appeal from a judgment of CFI MisamisFACTS:
Nov. 1909: Domalagan & Bolifer entered into a
contract wherein the formerwas to pay defendant the sum of P500 upon the marriage of the son CiprianoDomalagan w/ the defendant’s daughter, Bonifacia.
Aug 1910: Dad Domalagan paid the sum of P500 plus P16 as hansel or token offuture marriage.
 , Bonifacia married one Laureano Sisi. (read: new name– Bonifacia Sisi – puhlease!!)
Upon learning of the marriage, Domalagan demanded return of the said sum ofP516 plus interest and damages arising from the fact that he was obliged to sellhis real property in Bohol to come up with the sum.
Defendant denied complaint and alleged that it did not constitute a cause ofaction.
RTC: No evidence to show that plaintiff suffered any addtl damages. Ruled infavor of plaintiff for the return of P516 plus 6% interest from Dec 17, 1910 pluscosts.ISSUE:WON verbal contract of the parties was valid and effective to render delivery of themoney by reason of a prospective marriageHELD: Judgment affirmed.RATIO: Why, yes, of course!Sec 335 Par 3 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions:“In the ff cases an agreement made shall be unenforceable by action unlessthe same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing…(3) An agreement made upon the consideration of marriage, other than amutual promise to marry.”Said section does not render oral contracts invalid. A contract may be valid and yet, by virtue of said section, the parties will be unable to prove it. It simply provides themethod by w/c the contracts mentioned can be proved. The form required is forevidential purposes only.A contract may be perfectly valid even though it is not clothed w/ the necessary form.If the parties to an action, during the trial of the case, make no objection to theadmissibility of oral evidence to support contracts and permit the contract to beproved, by evidence other than a writing, it will be just as binding upon the parties asif it had been reduced to writing.
ESTANISLAO SERRANO vs. MELCHOR SOLOMON [June 29, 1959]Appeal from CFI Ilocos Sur decision
Alejandria Feliciano – father is in Hawaii; entrusted to father’s friend, EstanislaoSerrano who took care of her & raised her from 12 until she got married
 June 21, 1948 Alejandria & Melchor Solomon were married. Before theceremony, Solomon executed alleged Deed of Donation w/c stated among othersthat he was donating all of his exclusive properties to serve as capital for theirconjugal life & for the maintenance & support of their offsprings. Their childrenwill inherit such donation but in the absence of children, half of the properties

Activity (18)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Carol Plecis liked this
Lynn Martinez liked this
Jessica Tabar liked this
lawsph liked this
veoyen liked this
Glai Delos Reyes liked this
Glai Delos Reyes liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->