Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gonzalez vs. Miller
Gonzalez vs. Miller
FACTS: Having issued writ of execution, is embargoed the lots 356 and
357, described in the certificates of title 8373 and 8372, respectively, which
lots had bought Catalina Climacus of Isabelo Front and Julian In Front on
26 November 1928 with money from its exclusive property. Having passed
the deadline for the retracted them and not having exercised the right, the
Sheriff of Zamboanga Provincial granted final deed of sale of these lots in
favor of the plaintiff.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lots in question are here paraphernal Catalina
Climacus or spouses of her and her husband, Charles H. Miller?
HELD: Article 1407 of the Civil Code states that "It inhere acquired all the
assets of the marriage while it is proved that privatimente belong to the
husband or the wife." While it is true that when Catalina Climacus acquired
by purchase from Isabelo Front and Julian before November 26, 1928 lots.
356 And 357 was already married to Charles H. Miller, consists for his
statement not contradicted or challenged of false that the money with which
the acquired was its exclusive property or parafernal. The fact that the
transfer certificates of title we. 8372 AND 8373, relating to the
menmencionados lots, does not say that the registered owners are
Catalino Climacus and her husband Charles H. Miller, but that is said to be
Catalina Climacus says, "the wife of Charles H. Miller," indicates the
paraphernal wife Catherine Climacus, since the English phrase "the wife of
Charles H. Miller" is simply a description of their marital status.
Facts: On 03 June 1985, a civil case for Annulment of Public Auction Sale
with Damages coupled with Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for
Restraining Order was filed by herein petitioners against the respondents
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga, Bataan. It was originally
assigned to Branch 3, but was later re-raffled to Branch 1, presided over by
Judge Benjamin T. Vianzon. After trial, a decision was eventually
promulgated by the RTC on 11 August 1993. Finding no merit in the
complaint, it dismissed the case.
Not satisfied with the RTCs ruling, the petitioners filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals. In a Resolution dated 15 June 2000, the Court of Appeals
denied the motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not the essential requirements for the validity of the
sheriffs auction sale under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118,
governing the extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, have been
observed in the instant case?
Facts: On the 21st day of August, 1905, the plaintiff, through her attorneys,
filed an amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Albay for the purpose of recovering from the defendant certain pieces or
parcels of land described in the complaint, alleging: That she was the
owner of the said lands; that she had acquired said lands during her first
marriage from her deceased father. As a special defense the defendants
set up the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay
of the 29th of March, 1905. The lower court found as a fact from the
evidence adduced during the trial that the lands described in the complaint
were acquired by Hilarion de la Cruz, the father of the present defendants,
"during his married life with his first wife, Andrea de Leon,".
Held: Article 1382 of the Civil Code provides that the wife shall retain the
ownership of her property which she brings to the marriage relation. It is
true that article 1384 prescribes that she shall have the management of the
property, unless she was delivered the same to her husband by means of a
public document, providing that he may administer said property; but it
cannot be claimed; from the mere fact that she has permitted her husband
to administer her property without having his authority to do so evidenced
by a public document, that she has thereby lost her property and that the
same has become the property of her husband. No such claim was made
in the court below on behalf of the defendants. Their claim was that the
said Hilarion de la Cruz had acquired said property during the existence of
his marriage with his first wife, Andrea de Leon.
Facts: In the proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate of Ignacio
Trillanes, Maria Babao, the herein appellee, petitioned the court below that
an additional inventory be made of certain properties of the deceased and
an allowance be made to her minor children for their support, pending the
distribution of the estate. These minors are children of Jose Trillanes. This
petition was opposed by the administratrix of the estate on the ground that
said minors are not entitled to the support applied for, because section 684
of the Code of Civil Procedure provides only for the support of the children
of the deceased and not of his grandchildren. The lower court, however,
held otherwise and allowed P15 monthly pension to. The administratrix of
the estate appealed from this ruling.
Held: The ordinary acceptation, therefore, of the word "hijo" or child does
not include "nieto" or "grandchild." The reference made in the aforesaid
section to "allowances as are provided by the law in force in the Philippine
Islands," does not, in the opinion of the court, have the effect of extending
the right to this provisional support to persons other than the children of the
deceased. Appellee does not, and cannot, invoke but section 684 of the
Code of Civil Procedure in support of her petition, whose provisions on this
point do not, in the opinion of the court, extend to the grandchildren of the
deceased. She cannot invoke the Civil Code because the grandfather
Facts: It is also appears from the record on appeal that the claims against
the estate allowed by the said committee amount to P2, 457.99.
Notwithstanding this insolvent condition of the estate, the lower court
entered the order referred to of March 5, 1925, citing in its support article
1430 of the Civil Code and section 684 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue: Whether or not support be demanded when the liabilities exceed the
assets of the estate of the deceased spouse?
Held: The judgment of the Supreme Court of Spain of May 28, 1896,
resolves this question affirmatively. Sometime after the death of her
husband, the widow applied for support from the general inventoried estate
of the property from the date of the death of the husband until the delivery
of her share. The court granted the application and the Audiencia affirmed
its decision. Mr. Manresa, commenting on said article 1430 relative to the
said judgment of May 28, 1896, wisely observes "That the support does not
encumber the property of the deceased spouse, but the general estate, and
that by the general estate or the inventoried estate is meant the dowry or
capital of the wife; wherefore, even if the indebtedness exceed the residue
of the estate, the wife can always be allowed support as part payment of
the income of her property. In any case, the support is given prior to the
termination of the liquidation of the partnership, and it does not seem
logical to deny the same before knowing exactly the result of the
liquidation, just because of the fear that the liabilities will exceed the estate,
Facts: Upon the filing of the petition, the court issued an order setting it for
hearing on July 7, 1962, and caused a notice to that effect to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation in Zamboanga City, once a week, for
three (3) consecutive weeks. After said hearing, the court rendered the
appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article
192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a conjugal partnership shall only be
dissolved once legal separation has been ordered, and this cannot take
place, pursuant to Article 191 of the same Code, except upon civil
interdiction declaration of absence or abandonment.
Held: The husband and the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the
conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial approval. All
the creditors of the husband and of the wife as well as of the conjugal
partnership shall be notified of any petition for judicial approval of the
voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership, so that any such creditors
may appear at the hearing to safeguard his interests. Upon approval of the
petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership, the court shall take such
measures as may protect the creditors and other third persons.