This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
06 FACTS Petition for review on certiorari which terminated the regime of absolute community of property between petitioner and respondent P and R (German) were married in Germany and resided there in a house owned by R’s parents but later permanently resided in the Ph. R had inherited the house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo and in the construction of a house. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of P. After they separated, R filed a motion for separation of properties RTC DECISION: - terminated the regime of absolute community of property It also decreed the separation of properties between them and ordered the equal partition of personal properties located within the country, excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during the marriage. - Re Antipolo property, R cannot recover his funds coz it was a violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution which prohibited aliens from procuring private lands. CA DECISION: there is nothing in the Constitution preventing R from procuring land then ordered P to reimburse him said amount.
RATIO NO. respondent. Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, respondent’s disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed. W Where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud. R cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition.
WON respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property?
The doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference dictates that the assumption by the Makati RTC over the issue operates as an “insurmountable barrier” to the subsequent assumption by the Parañaque RTC.Without ownership. R’s petition became moot coz Evelyn committed in open court that she will not dispose of the property during the pendency of the case. in whose favor the injunction is issued. or any other law or contract binding the defendants to him. Evelyn obtained a loan from P (PAFIN) and executed a REM (real estate mortgage) in favor of P over the townhouse unit.a foreign national. During the pendency of the case. R filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Restraining Order against Evelyn and an Application for a Writ of a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin her from disposing or encumbering all of the properties registered in her name. Evelyn then bought a townhouse unit which was registered in her name.12 FACTS R (Japanese) and Evelyn married. R filed a PDN against Evelyn on the ground of bigamy.PACIFIC ACE VS YANAGISAWA GR 175303 04. cannot possibly own the mortgaged property. ISSUE WON pque rtc’s decision was improper RATIO YES. . of Eiji and Evelyn has been submitted for the resolution of the Makati RTC. and is pending appeal before the CA. PQUE RTC DECISION: . CA DECISION: annulled the REM executed by Evelyn in favor of PAFIN. MAKATI RTC DECISION: (at the time of the mortgage) dissolved the marriage between R and Evelyn and ordered the liquidation of their properties. . Eiji has no cause of action that may be asserted against Evelyn and P. has a cause of action to seek the annulment of the offending actions HELD Denied for lack of merit. The issue of ownership and liquidation of properties acquired during the cohabitation . The party.11.Jurisprudence holds that all acts done in violation of a standing injunction order are voidable as to the party enjoined and third parties who are not in good faith. R filed for an annulment of the REM.
A Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was issued on 3 January 2008 in favor of the law firm for the P’s properties. ISSUE WON Joena had the right to the claim? RATIO NO. P filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that the sheriff had levied on properties belonging to his children and petitioner Joena. her claim cannot be sustained. Joena filed an Affidavit of Third Party alleging that she and her stepchildren owned a number of the personal properties sought to be levied and that it was under their ACP. (3) of the Family Code excludes from the community property the property acquired before the marriage of a spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage. neither these two . Petition denied. As to one of the children. parental authority over him belongs to his parents. Two of these stepchildren were already of legal age when Joena filed her Affidavit.18. HELD vehicles nor the house and lot belong to the second marriage. R filed a case against P d to return partnership funds representing profits from the sale of a parcel of land and sought to recover from petitioner retainer fees that he received from two clients of the firm and the balance of the cash advance that he obtained. *P has been previously married to another woman but their marriage has already been dissolved.12 FACTS P and R were law firm partners. 92.ABRENICA VS ABRENICA GR 180572 06. Absent any special power of attorney authorizing Joena to represent Erlando’s children. par. Art. Thus. and the fruits and the income. if any. of that property.
The lower court ruled in favor of PNB in the first case and ordered the guarantors in the second case to pay Luzon Surety. In Article 161 of the CC. RATIO NO. profession or business with the honest belief that he is doing right for the benefit of the family. 161 of the CC. when no proof is presented that Vicente Garcia in acting as surety or guarantor received consideration therefor. There is none in this case. HELD CA’s decision affirmed. The Garcias filed a suit of injunction which the lower court found in their favor based on Art. On August. On April 1957. ISSUE WON a conjugal partnership. the sheriff levied his sugar quedans which were conjugal property of the Garcia spouses. PNB filed complaint against Luzon Surety which subsequently prompted Luzon Surety to file a complaint against the guarantors (one of which was Garcia).839. a conjugal partnership under that provision is liable only for such "debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. could be held liable on an indemnity agreement executed by the husband to accommodate a third party in favor of a surety company? act for the benefit of the conjugal partnership.. 163 of the New Civil Code states that as such administrator the only obligations incurred by the husband that are chargeable against the conjugal property are those incurred in the legitimate pursuit of his career. CFI DECISION: issued a writ of execution for Garcia to pay the amount of P3. Such inference is more emphatic in this case.LUZON SURETY CO VS DE GARCIA 30 SCRA 111 FACTS Luzon Surety granted a crop loan 1to Chavez based on a surety bond executed in favor of Philippine National Bank where Garcia was one of the guarantors of the indemnity agreement. Art. Luzon Surety appealed to the CA which affirmed the lower court’s decision." There must be the requisite showing then of some advantage which clearly accrued to the welfare of the spouses. which may redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. This is not true in the case at bar for we believe that the husband in acting as guarantor or surety for another in an indemnity agreement as that involved in this case did not . in the absence of any showing of benefits received.
leaving unpaid amounts.GELANO VS CA 103 SCRA 90 FACTS Insular Sawmill. and given to him. Guillermina refused to pay on the ground that she had no knowledge of such accommodation. Article 1408. without her knowledge and consent and did not benefit the family. ISSUE RATIO YES. CFI DECISION: held Carlos liable. Hence. Spouses Gelanos purchased lumber materials on credit for the repair and improvement of their residence. Civil Code of 1889 which provision incidentally can still be found in paragraph 1. CA DECISION: held spouses jointly and severally liable. Article 161 of the New Civil Code. Inc. The obligation/debt contracted by petitioner-husband Carlos Gelano redounded to the benefit of the family. Gelano refused to pay on the ground that said amount was for the personal account of her husband asked for by. the conjugal property is liable for his debt. Gelano (wife) Carlos Gelano (husband) obtained cash advances but refused to pay his unpaid balances. Pursuant to paragraph 1. WON the couple’s conjugal property is liable? . as accomodating party. executed a joint and several promissory note with Carlos Gelano in favor of China Banking Corporation bank payable in 60 days to help renew the previous loan of the spouses but Carlos only paid a fraction of it. Joseph Tan Yoc Su. leased the paraphernal property of Guillermina M. Insular filed a complaint for collection against the spouses before the CFI. Guillermina M.
The debts contracted by the husband for and in the exercise of the industry or profession by which he contributes to the support of the family cannot be deemed to be his exclusive and private debts. one of which was conjugal property of land. Property of Luis was sold to pay for his debt. However Luis wasn‘t able to pay. Luis Narciso entered into Contract o Hire of heavey Equipment with petitioner G-Tractors where G-tractors leased former tractors.” There is no doubt then that his account with the petitioner was brought about in order to enhance the productivity of said logging business. He operates a logging concession. Article 161 of the New Civil Code provides that the conjugal partnership shall be liable for “all the debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Narciso is a conjugal debt for which the conjugal partnership property can be held answerable? RATIO YES.G TRACTORS INC VS CA 135 SCRA 192 FACTS Luis Narciso is married to Josefina Narciso. WIFE’S CONTENTIONS: -whatever transpired in the civil case against them could be binding only on the husband Luis R. also for the same purpose. Narciso and could not affect or bind the plaintiff-wife Josefina Salak Narciso who was not a party to that case that the nature of the Sheriff's sale clearly stated that only the property of the husband may be sold to satisfy the money judgment against him that the conjugal property of the plaintiffsspouses could not be made liable for the satisfaction of the judgment in the civil caseconsidering that the subject matter of said case was never used for the benefit of the conjugal partnership or of the family The obligations were contracted in connection with his legitimate business as a producer and exporter in mahogany logs and certainly benefited the conjugal partnership. Co tract stipulated payment for rental. and those contracted by the wife. . ISSUE WON the judgment debt of private respondent Luis R. a commercial enterprise for gain which he had the right to embark the conjugal partnership. in the cases where she may legally bind the partnership.
A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she -purchases things necessary for the support of the family . Both Michele and Cleodualdo have waived their title to and ownership of the house and lot in Taal St. and hence. in the present case to those belonging to Michele and Matrai. Respondent ordered Michele and her partner Matrai to vacate the premises leased to them and to pay back rentals. for lack of legal basis. The power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone. CA DECISION: Michele's obligation was not proven to be a personal debt. unpaid telephone bill. Real property donated to Cleodia and Ceamantha were used as payment. ISSUE WON the conjugal property of the former spouses may be held accountable? RATIO NO.when she borrows money for that purpose upon her husband's failure to deliver the needed sum -when administration of the conjugal partnership is transferred to the wife by the courts or by the husband -or when the wife gives moderate donations for charity. In this case as the liability incurred by Michele arose from a judgment rendered in an unlawful detainer case against her and her partner Matrai. custody. as co-owners. and attorney's fees. the property may be held answerable for it. when they reach nineteen (19) and eighteen (18) years old. who was then already living separately from Cleodualdo rented the house in Lanka Drive for her and Matrai's own benefit. rights and responsibilities on matters relating to their children's support. when they entered into the lease agreement.17. . *Cleodualdo and Michele married prior to the affectivity of the FC thus their property relations are governed by the Civil Code on conjugal partnership of gains. visitation. Francisco. Michele. in favor of petitioners.08 FACTS Coz of a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The property should not have been levied and sold at execution sale. Cleodualdo and Michele have voluntarily agreed to set forth their obligations. In fact. Ownership of the conjugal property consisting of a house and lot covered by Transfer Certificate in the name of Cleodualdo M. married to Michele U. as well as to the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains in a compromise agreement.FRANCISCO VS GONZALES GR 177667 09. it must be inferred that it is conjugal and redounded to the benefit of the family. Michele and Matrai purported themselves to be husband and wife. Francisco shall be transferred by way of a deed of donation to Cleodia and Ceamantha.
09 FACTS Civil case for damages that arose from slander filed by spouses Buado against Erlinda Nicol RTC ruled that Erlinda is liable and ordered her to pay for damages. There is no dispute that contested property is conjugal in nature.BUADO VS CA GR 145222 02. which was affirmed by CA and SC court issued writ of execution. and alleged that the property was directly levied upon without exhausting the personal properties of Erlinda. By no stretch of imagination can it be concluded that the civil obligation arising from the crime of slander committed by Erlinda redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.24. Sale proceeded with the spouses Buado emerging as the highest bidder A year after the sale. ISSUE WON wife’s criminal liability is chargeable to the conjugal partnership? Unlike in the system of absolute community where liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable to the absolute community of property. the same advantage is not accorded in the system of conjugal partnership of gains. sheriff deigned to issue a notice of levy on real property on execution. . a notice of sheriff’s sale was issued Two days prior to the bidding. The conjugal partnership of gains has no duty to make advance payments for the liability of the debtor-spouse. in the absence or insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse. filed a complaint for annulment of certificate of sale and damages with preliminary injunction against petitioners and the deputy sheriff. RATIO NO. husband of Erlinda. a Third Party Claim was received at the sheriff’s office from one Arnulfo Fulo. Article 122 of the Family Code explicitly provides that payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. directing the sheriff to collect the indemnification from Erlinda Finding Erlinda’s personal properties insufficient. Romulo Nicol. and thereafter. prompting spouses Buado to put up a sheriff’s indemnity bond.
during their marriage. she reluctantly agreed to execute a Deed of Sale of the Rizal Property on the promise that Yu Bun Guan would construct a commercial building for the benefit of the children. Ong purchased a parcel of land (Rizal Property) from Aurora Seneris. he did not pay the consideration of P200K. CA affirmed. in which the stated consideration had not in fact been paid. He suggested that the property should be in his name alone so that she would not be involved in any obligation. when the Deed of Sale was executed in favor of Yu Bun Guan. The property was the paraphernal property of respondent. volcanic temper. In 1968. Yu Bun Guan then filed for a Petition for Replacement of the TCT. Then he said that it came from his mother. because of his incurable promiscuity. At first he maintained that the money came from his own personal funds. they purchased a house and lot out of their conjugal funds. However. Also. on the other hand. because (1) the title had been issued in her name. Ong. (3) petitioner was estopped from claiming otherwise. This property is not part Yu Bun Guan and Ong are married since 1961 and lived together until she and her children were abandoned by him in 1992.YU BUN GUAN VS ONG 36 SCRA 559 FACTS * Paraphernal property refers to property over which the wife has complete control. It was also sufficiently proven that she had means to do so. Because of this. RTC ruled in favor of Ong that the lot was her paraphernal property since she purchased it with her personal funds. and (4) she had paid the real property taxes. The consideration for the sale was the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor their children and the payment of the loan he obtained from Allied Bank. the new title was issued in his name was not delivered to him by Ong. The testimony of petitioner as to the source of the money he had supposedly used to purchase the property was at best vague and unclear. out of her personal funds. * A deed of sale. is null and void: . since he had signed the Deed of Absolute Sale that stated that she was the “absolute and registered owner”. supposedly the "ostensible" valuable consideration. from his father. and next. with an Affidavit of Loss attached. (2) petitioner had categorically admitted that the property was in her name. ISSUE WON the lot in question was paraphernal property? RATIO YES. and other vicious vices. Before their separation in 1992. executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim and asked that the sale be declared null and void .
the signing of one of them in the certification substantially complies with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping. Randy Angeles. Joy Constantino and Liberty Cruz signed the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. * Revised Circular No. their respective spouses did not sign the same.30.00 FACTS Private respondent Nenita Co Bautista filed a case for unlawful detainer against herein petitioners where they were sued as “Mr. and Mrs.” in the said case. 1994 applies to and governs the filing of petitions in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and is intended to prevent the multiple filing of petitions or complaints involving the same issues in other tribunals or agencies as a form of forum shopping. ISSUE WON The signing of one of the spouses in the certification substantially complies with the rule on certification of non-forum shopping? RATIO YES. The petitioners were sued jointly. PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: since what is involved in the instant case is their common rights and interest to abode under the the system of absolute community of property. . and Mrs. or as “Mr. 28-91. dated February 8. either of the spouses can sign the petition. Such being the case.DAR VS LEGASTO GR 143016 08. Petitioners were found guilty of failure to comply with the Rule on Certification of Non-Forum Shopping coz while petitioners Ronnie Dar.” over a property in which they have a common interest.
Considering that Joselyn appeared to be the designated "vendee" in the Deed of Sale of said property. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin. Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out. Joselyn bought a lot Boracay property. no implied trust was created in his favor. a British subject. authorizing the latter to maintain. Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of Lease between Joselyn and petitioner.MATTHEWS VS TAYLOR GR 164584 06. married Joselyn C. Benjamin claimed that his funds were used in the acquisition and improvement of the Boracay property. constructed improvements thereon and eventually converted the property to a vacation and tourist resort known as the Admiral Ben Bow Inn.22. also using the latter’s funds. and no declaration can be made that the subject property was part of the conjugal/community property of the spouses. Petitioner thereafter took possession of the property and renamed the resort as Music Garden Resort. she acquired sole ownership thereto. Taylor (Benjamin). and sub-lease and otherwise enter into contract with third parties with respect to their Boracay property Joselyn as lessor and petitioner Philip Matthews as lessee. Claiming that the Agreement was null and void since it was entered into by Joselyn without his (Benjamin’s) consent. no reimbursement for his expenses can be allowed. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines. Taylor (Joselyn). Section 7. a 17-year old Filipina. Joselyn executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Benjamin. RTC DECISION: considered the Boracay property as community property of Benjamin and Joselyn. While their marriage was subsisting. and coupled with the fact that he was Joselyn’s husband. ISSUE WON Benjamin was the actual owner of the property since he provided the funds used in purchasing the same? . By entering into such contract knowing that it was illegal. any transaction involving said property required his consent. Joselyn and Benjamin. save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions. being an alien. lease. thus. and Joselyn ran away with Kim Philippsen. sell. CA affirmed. Benjamin. the consent of the spouses was necessary to validate any contract involving the property. Benjamin instituted an action for Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of Lease with Damages11 against Joselyn and the petitioner. is absolutely prohibited from acquiring private and public lands in the Philippines.09 FACTS Respondent Benjamin A. entered into an Agreement of Lease10 (Agreement) involving the Boracay property for a period of 25 years. RATIO NO.
that the participation of Rito and Dina as vendors had been by virtue of their being heirs of the late Marta . Sr. Sr. because there were three vendors in the sale to Servacio (namely: Protacio. Go. all that he had was an ideal or abstract quota in Marta’s share. could not yet assert or claim title to any specific portion of Marta’s share without an actual partition of the property being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree. Protacio Go. Rito. Protacio.). et al. whereby he affirmed under oath that it was his father. Go sold a portion of the property to Ester L.. Sr. and an implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Protacio. Marta Barola Go died (wife of Protacio. Protacio. and Marta was null and void.07. their property relation was properly characterized as one of conjugal partnership governed by the Civil Code. . Protacio. and his son Rito B. Sr.. Also. They sued Servacio. Sr. Until then. Since Protacio. Jr. (Protacio. The petitioners demanded the return of the property. RTC DECISION: affirmed the validity of the sale .11 FACTS Jesus B. the property became conjugal property. to Servacio was void for being made without prior liquidation? RATIO NO. Sr. Sr. but not the interest of his co-owners. all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage was conjugal unless there was proof that the property thus acquired pertained exclusively to the husband or to the wife ISSUE WON the sale by Protacio. Servacio (Servacio). Jr. Gaviola sold two parcels of land to Protacio B. it should not impair vested rights. pursuant to Article 175 (1) of the Civil Code. Jr. not the exclusive property of Protacio. and that the sale of the property to Servacio without the prior liquidation of the community property between Protacio. Jr.HEIRS OF GO VS SERVACIO GR 157537 09. the conjugal partnership was dissolved. Sr. not he. Sr. hence. had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest.declared that the property was the conjugal property of Protacio.’s renunciation. and Marta. NONETHELESS. Sr. and the other heirs of Marta with respect to her share in the assets of the conjugal partnership pending a liquidation following its liquidation. Twenty three years later Protacio.. and mother of the petitioners). executed an Affidavit of Renunciation and Waiver. Sr. and Marta were married prior to the affectivity of the Family Code. Sr.that under Article 160 of the Civil Code.). Sr. who had purchased the two parcels of land (the property). the law in effect when the property was acquired. (Protacio. Upon Marta’s death.. a co-owner could sell his undivided share. and Dina) . although becoming a co-owner with his children in respect of Marta’s share in the conjugal partnership. PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: following Protacio. but Servacio refused to heed their demand.
otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines. RTC DECISION: dismissed and CA affirmed.08 FACTS P and R married and got separated after 6 years. the marriage was null and void. . among others. he and petitioner entered into an agreement which provided. they submitted an Amicable Settlement to CFI. 3330. conjugal partnership terminates in the case of Judicial Separation of Property. Respondent allegedly married another. They had a son. and conclusive only upon parties thereto and their privies. when the trial court decided Special Proceedings No. The finality of the Order in Civil Case No. Under ART 175 (4). Pursuant to the agreement. and no community of property was formed between them. * A judgment upon a compromise agreement has all the force and effect of any other judgment. P and R were married on 15 February 1951. R also said that P already obtained a divorce from him in Mexico. The applicable law at the time of their marriage was Republic Act No. HELD CA decision affirmed. . 4791 approving the parties’ separation of property resulted in the termination of the conjugal partnership of gains in accordance with Article 175 of the Family Code. Considering that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized without a marriage license.29. Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with the RTC against respondent but respondent countered that on 2 June 1961. 386. that their conjugal partnership of gains shall be deemed dissolved as of 15 April 1957.UGALDE VS YSASI GR 130623 02. ISSUE WON P and R’s conjugal partnership of gains was dissolved? RATIO YES. the conjugal partnership between petitioner and respondent was already dissolved.the existence of a conjugal partnership of gains is predicated on a valid marriage. and not binding on third persons who are not parties to it. Hence.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.