You are on page 1of 10

Princess Morado

Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda. De Batocael Case Digest FACTS:


G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001
Honorio Carlos filed a petition against Manuel Abelardo, his
G.R. No. L-68873, March 31, 1989
Facts: Francisco Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana son-in-law for recovery of the $25,000 loan used to
Lucilda Dael v. Intermediate Appellate Court, ET. Al.
became the registered owners of two lots in Zamboanga del purchase a house and lot located at Paranaque. It was in
Norte. After the death of Zosima, Francisco and his mother- October 1989 when the petitioner issued a check worth as
FACTS:
in-law executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver such to assist the spouses in conducting their married life
Cesario Cabutihan was married to Beinvenida
of rights, in which the latter waived her share of the independently. The seller of the property acknowledged
Durana, whom he had five children, upon the death of the
property. Thereafter, Francisco registered the lot in his receipt of the full payment. In July 1991, the petitioner
wife; Cesario contracted a second marriage with his former
name. Having no children to take care of him after his inquired from spouses status of the amount loaned from
wifes sister Victorina.
retirement, Francisco asked his niece Leticia, the latters him, the spouses pleaded that they were not yet in position
Private respondents filed settlement over the property of
cousin Luzviminda and petitioner Cirila Arcaba, to take care to make a definite settlement. Thereafter, respondent
their deceased parents. Trial Court rendered a decision
of his house and store. expressed violent resistance to the extent of making various
holding that Victorina Durana had no paraphernal properties
death threats against petitioner. In 1994, petitioner made a
brought to her marriage with Cesario. That the copra
Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the nature of the formal demand but the spouses failed to comply with the
business was formed during the first marriage and Victorina
relationship between Cirila and Francisco. Leticia said that obligation. The spouses were separated in fact for more
used the same facilities, credit and capital in managing the
the previous party was lovers since they slept in the same than a year prior the filing of the complaint hence spouses
business, and the main source of the income not only of
room while Erlinda claimed that Francisco told her that Cirila filed separate answers. Abelardo contended that the
Cesario and also of Victorina during their respective lifetimes
was his mistress. On the other hand, Cirila said she was amount was never intended as a loan but his share of
was the copra business. Hence, the extent of the Estate of
mere helper and that Francisco was too old for her. income on contracts obtained by him in the construction
Victorina shall consist only of her share in the inheritance of
firm and that the petitoner could have easily deducted the
the Estate of Cesario Cabutihan. Intermediate Appellate
A few months before Franciscos death, he executed an debt from his share in the profits. RTC decision was in favor
Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
instrument denominated Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in of the petitioner, however CA reversed and set aside trial
which he ceded a portion of the lot together with is house to courts decision for insufficiency of evidence. Evidently,
ISSUE:
Cirila, who accepted the donation in the same instrument. there was a check issued worth $25,000 paid to the owner
Is the marital community of proprietary interest
The deed stated that the donation was being made in of the Paranaque property which became the conjugal
continued to exist in the second marriage, even after the
consideration of the faithful services she had rendered over dwelling of the spouses. The wife executed an instrument
Cesario-Beinvenida conjugal partnership has been dissolved
the past ten years. Thereafter, Francisco died and the acknowledging the loan but Abelardo did not sign.
by the death of Bienvenida?
respondents filed a complaint against Cirila for declaration of
nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery of ISSUE: WON a loan obtained to purchase the conjugal
HOLDING:
possession and damages. Respondents, who are nieces, dwelling can be charged against the conjugal partnership.
The first conjugal partnership was automatically
nephews and heirs by intestate succession of Francisco,
dissolved because of death of Bienvenida and it was
alleged that Cirila was the common-law wife of Francisco HELD:
converted into an implied ordinary co-ownership. There
and the donation inert vivos is void under Article 87 of the
should be liquidation of properties before contracting
Family Code. Yes, as it has redounded to the benefit of the family. They
another marriage. Since there was none, the total mass of
did not deny that the same served as their conjugal home
the partnership property shall be divided between the
Issue: Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos thus benefiting the family. Hence, the spouses are jointly
different partnerships in proportion to the duration of each
executed by the late Francisco Comille be declared void and severally liable in the payment of the loan. Abelardos
and to the property belonging to the respective spouses.
under Article 87 of the Family Code. contention that it is not a loan rather a profit share in the
One-half (1/2) of the properties that pertain to the first
construction firm is untenable since there was no proof that
conjugal partnership belong to Cesario as his conjugal share
Ruling: Where it has been established by preponderance of he was part of the stockholders that will entitle him to the
therein, while the other half shall be considered as inherited
evidence that two persons lived together as husband and profits and income of the company.
by him and his five children as the heirs of Bienvenida.
wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion is
The properties pertaining to the second partnership shall
that the donation made by one in favor of the other is void Hence, the petition was granted and Abelardo is ordered to
also be equally divided, one-half (1/2) to belong to Cesario
under Article 87 of the Family Code. pay the petitioner in the amount of $25,000 plus legal
and the other to Victorina as their respective shares in their
interest including moral and exemplary damages and
conjugal partnership properties. The share of Cesario should
Therefore, respondents having proven by preponderance of attorneys fees.
then be divided among his heirs, namely, Victorina and his
evidence that Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband
five (5) children.
and wife without a valid marriage, the donation inter vivos is
To recapitulate, the estate of Victorina for distribution to her
considered null and void.
In Vda. de Ramones v. Agbayani, citing Villaranda v. heirs shall consist of her one-half (1/2) share in the conjugal
Villaranda, we held that without the wife's consent, the properties of the aforesaid second marriage and her one-
husband's alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property sixth (1/6) share in the estate of Cesario as an heir.
Carlos vs. Abelardo prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988
GR No. 146504, April 4, 2002 is not void, but merely voidable.

1
Princess Morado

Ching v. CA, 423 SCRA 356, February 23, 2004 In this case, the private respondent failed to prove that the the wife on the ground that the property was mortgaged
FACTS: Philippine Blooming Mills Company, Inc. (PBMCI) conjugal partnership of the petitioners was benefited by the without her consent, hence, it is void contending that a
obtained two loans from the Allied Banking Corporation petitioner-husbands act of executing a continuing guaranty conjugal property cannot be mortgaged without the consent
(ABC). (PBMCI) Executive Vice-President Alfredo Ching and suretyship agreement with the private respondent for of the spouse.
executed a continuing guaranty with the ABC for the and in behalf of PBMCI. The contract of loan was between In brushing aside the contention, the SC
payment of the said loan. The PBMCI defaulted in the the private respondent and the PBMCI, solely for the benefit Held: The lack of consent to the mortgage covering the
payment of all its loans so ABC filed a complaint for sum of of the latter. No presumption can be inferred from the fact title in question would not render the encumbrance void
money against the PBMCI. Trial court issued a writ of that when the petitioner-husband entered into an under the second paragraph of Article 124 of the Family
preliminary attachment against Alfredo Ching requiring the accommodation agreement or a contract of surety, the Code. For proof is wanting that the property covered by the
sheriff of to attach all the properties of said Alfredo Ching to conjugal partnership would thereby be benefited. The title is conjugal that it was acquired during respondents
answer for the payment of the loans. Encarnacion T. Ching, private respondent was burdened to establish that such marriage which is what would give rise to the presumption
wife of Alfredo Ching, filed a Motion to Set Aside the levy on benefit redounded to the conjugal partnership. that it is conjugal property. (Article 116, F.C.). The
attachment allegeing inter alia that the 100,000 shares of statement in the title that the property is registered in
stocks levied on by the sheriff were acquired by her and her accordance with the provisions of Section 103 of the
husband during their marriage out of conjugal funds. Property Registration Decree in the name of JOSE B. TAN,
In Josefa Ferrer v. Sps. Manuel & Virginia Ferrer, et
Petitioner spouses aver that the source of funds in the of legal age, married to Eliza Go Tan does not prove or
al., G.R. No. 166496, November 29, 2006, prior to his
acquisition of the levied shares of stocks is not the indicate that the property is conjugal. In Ruiz v. CA, G.R.
marriage with Josefa, Alfredo owned a real property. He
controlling factor when invoking the presumption of the No. 146942, April 22, 2003, 401 SCRA 410, it was ruled that
obtained a loan from the SSS to build improvements on the
conjugal nature of stocks under Art. !21 and that such the phrase married to ismerely descriptive of the civil
land, but the loan was paid during their marriage. Alfredo
presumption subsists even if the property is registered only status of a person and should not be construed to mean
sold the property to his brother. After his death, Josefa
in the name of one of the spouses, in this case, petitioner that the spouse is also a registered owner. Furthermore,
demanded that she be reimbursed one half (1/2) of the
Alfredo Ching. According to the petitioners, the suretyship registration of the property is not proof that such
value of the improvements and demanded for such
obligation was not contracted in the pursuit of the property was acquired during the marriage, and thus,
reimbursement from the brothers of Alfredo who are now
petitioner-husbands profession or business.44 is presumed to be conjugal. The property could have been
the registered owners.
acquired by a spouse while he was still single, and
Is her contention correct? Why?
ISSUE: WON 100,000 shares of stocks may be levied on by registered only after the marriage. Acquisition of title and
Held: No. While there is an obligation to reimburse the cost
the sheriff to answer for the loans guaranteed by petitioner registration thereof are two different acts. The presumption
of the improvements, the obligation to reimburse rests on
Alfredo Ching under Article 116 of the Family Code that properties
the spouse upon whom ownership of the entire property is
acquired during the marriage are presumed to be conjugal
vested. There is no obligation on the part of the purchaser
HELD: No. cannot apply in the instant case. Before such presumption
of the property, in case the property is sold by the owner-
RATIO: The CA erred in holding that by executing a can apply, it must first be established that the property was
spouse.
continuing guaranty and suretyship agreement with the in fact acquired during the marriage. In other words, proof
Indeed, Article 120 provides the solution in
private respondent for the payment of the PBMCI loans, the of acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua
determining the ownership of the improvements that are
petitioner-husband was in the exercise of his profession, non for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal
made on the separate property of the spouses at the
pursuing a legitimate business. ownership. No such proof was offered nor presented in the
expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of
case at bar. (Metrobank, et al. v. Jose Tan, et al., G.R. No.
either or both spouses. Thus, when the cost of the
The shares of stocks are, thus, presumed to be the conjugal 163712, November 30, 2006).
improvement and any resulting increase in value are more
partnership property of the petitioners. The private
than the value of the property at the time of the
respondent failed to adduce evidence that the petitioner-
improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall
husband acquired the stocks with his exclusive money.
belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to PHILIP MATTHEWS vs. BENJAMIN A. TAYLOR and
reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner- JOSELYN C. TAYLOR
The appellate court erred in concluding that the conjugal
spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said G.R. No. 164584 June 22, 2009
partnership is liable for the said account of PBMCI.
property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-
Article 121 provides: The conjugal partnership shall be liable
spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the Facts:
for: (1) All debts and obligations contracted by the husband
improvement. (Ferrer v. Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 166496, 1. On June 30, 1988, respondent Benjamin, a British
for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, and those
November 29, 2006). subject, married Joselyn, a 17-year old Filipina.
contracted by the wife, also for the same purpose, in the
2. On June 9, 1989, while their marriage was subsisting,
cases where she may legally bind the partnership.
Joselyn bought from Diosa M. Martin a lot (Boracay
property).
For the conjugal partnership to be liable for a liability that In Metrobank, et al. v. Jose Tan, et al., G.R. No. 3. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin.
should appertain to the husband alone, there must be a 163712, November 30, 2006, a property was registered 4. Joselyn and Benjamin, also using the latters funds,
showing that some advantages accrued to the spouses. under the names Jose Tan married to Eliza Go Tan. The constructed improvements thereon and eventually converted
husband contracted an obligation secured by a mortgage the property to a vacation and tourist resort known as the
over the property. Since the husband failed to pay, there Admiral Ben Bow Inn.
was foreclosure of the mortgage which was objected to by 5. All required permits and licenses for the operation of the

2
Princess Morado

resort were obtained in the name of Ginna Celestino, Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of Lease from it, P293,250 from the said amount was loaned by
Joselyns sister. between Joselyn and petitioner. Benjamin, being an alien, is Quirino to the Carandangs. In the subsequent increase in
6. However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out, and absolutely prohibited from acquiring private and public lands MBS capital stock on March 3, 1989, the Carandangs
Joselyn ran away with Kim Philippsen. in the Philippines. Considering that Joselyn appeared to be subscribed again to the increase in the amount of P93,750.
7. On June 8, 1992, Joselyn executed a SPA in favor of the designated "vendee" in the Deed of Sale of said But, P43,125 out of the mentioned amount was again
Benjamin, authorizing the latter to maintain, sell, lease, and property, she acquired sole ownership thereto. This is true loaned by Quirino.
sub-lease and otherwise enter into contract with third even if we sustain Benjamins claim that he provided the
parties with respect to their Boracay property. funds for such acquisition. By entering into such contract When Quirino sent a demand letter to the
8. On July 20, 1992, Joselyn as lessor and petitioner Philip knowing that it was illegal, no implied trust was created in Carandangs for the payment of the loan, the Carandangs
Matthews as lessee, entered into an Agreement of Lease his favor; no reimbursement for his expenses can be refused to pay. They contend that a pre-incorporation
involving the Boracay property for a period of 25 years, with allowed; and no declaration can be made that the subject agreement was executed between Arcadio Carandang and
an annual rental of P12,000.00. property was part of the conjugal/community property of Quirino, whereby Quirino promised to pay for the stock
9. Petitioner thereafter took possession of the property and the spouses. In any event, he had and has no capacity or subscriptions of the Arcadio without cost, in consideration
renamed the resort as Music Garden Resort. personality to question the subsequent lease of the Boracay for Arcadios technical expertise, his newly purchased
10. Claiming that the Agreement was null and void since it property by his wife on the theory that in so doing, he was equipment, and his skill in repairing and upgrading
was entered into by Joselyn without Benjamins consent, merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of radio/communication equipment therefore, there is no
Benjamin instituted an action for Declaration of Nullity of conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would indebtedness on the part of the Carandangs.
Agreement of Lease with Damages against Joselyn and the countenance indirect controversion of the constitutional
petitioner. prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, Thereafter, Quirino filed a complaint seeking to recover the
11. Benjamin claimed that his funds were used in the this would accord the alien husband a substantial interest P336,375 total amount of the loan together with damages.
acquisition and improvement of the Boracay property, and and right over the land, as he would then have a decisive The RTC ruled in favor of Quirino and ordered the
coupled with the fact that he was Joselyns husband, any vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Carandangs to pay the loan plus interest, attorneys fees,
transaction involving said property required his consent. Constitution does not permit him to have. and costs of suit. The Carandangs appealed the trial courts
decision to the CA, but the CA affirmed the same. The
Issue: subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
1. Whether or not the Agreement of Lease of a parcel of Carandangs were also denied. Hence, this appeal to the SC.
ARCADIO and MARIA LUISA CARANDANG, Petitioners,
land entered into by a Filipino wife without the consent of
vs. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN, namely:
her British husband is valid SPOUSES CARANDANG: Three of the four checks used to
MILAGROS DE GUZMAN, VICTOR DE GUZMAN,
2. Whether or not Benjamin is the actual owner of the pay their stock subscriptions were issued in the name of
REYNALDO DE GUZMAN, CYNTHIA G. RAGASA and
property since he provided the funds used in purchasing the Milagros de Guzman, the decedents wife. Thus, Milagros
QUIRINO DE GUZMAN, JR., Respondents. G.R. No.
same should be considered as an indispensable party in the
160347; November 29, 2006
complaint. Being such, the failure to join Milagros as a party
Ruling: in the case should cause the dismissal of the action by
reason of a jurisprudence stating that: (i)f a suit is not
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states: TOPIC: RULE ON COMPULSORY JOINDER OF brought in the name of or against the real party in interest,
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private INDISPENSABLE PARTIES (CO-OWNERS OF PERSONAL a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the
lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, PROPERTIES) complaint states no cause of action."
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain. ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC should have dismissed the
Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been NATURE OF THE CASE: This case reached the Supreme case for failure to state a cause of action, considering that
disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Court as an appeal to the decision of the CA ruling against Milagros de Guzman, allegedly an indispensable party, was
Hence, by virtue of the aforecited constitutional provision, the spouses Carandang and denying their motion for not included as a party-plaintiff.
they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands. The reconsideration. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision that
primary purpose of this constitutional provision is the Milagros de Guzman, the decedents wife, is not an HELD: No. Although the spouses Carandang were correct in
conservation of the national patrimony. Our fundamental law indispensable party in the complaint, hence, her non- invoking the aforementioned doctrine, the ground set forth
cannot be any clearer. The right to acquire lands of the inclusion in the case does not warrant a dismissal of the entails an examination of whether the parties presently
public domain is reserved only to Filipino citizens or complaint. pleaded are interested in the outcome of the litigation,
corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which is and not whether all persons interested in such outcome are
owned by Filipinos. FACTS: Spouses Carandang and the decedent Quirino de actually pleaded. The first query seeks to answer the
The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are absolutely not Guzman were stockholders and corporate officers of question of whether Milagros is a real party in interest, while
allowed to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines, Mabuhay Broadcasting System (MBS). The Carandangs have the latter query is asking if she is an indispensable party.
save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions. There is equities at 54 % while Quirino has 46%. Since the issue of this case calls for the definition of an
no rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition, as indispensable party, invoking the abovementioned doctrine
more and more aliens attempt to circumvent the provision When the capital stock of MBS was increased on is irrelevant to the case because the doctrine talks about a
by trying to own lands through another. November 26, 1983, the Carandangs subscribed P345,000 real party in interest and not an indispensable party.

3
Princess Morado

Although it is important to take note that an indispensable the action should be dismissed. The absence of an SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. MAR
party is also a real party in interest. indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations of the TIERRA CORP, WILFRIDO MARTINEZ, MIGUEL
court void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the LACSON, and RICARDO LOPA
absent parties but even as to those present. For necessary November 29, 2006 (508 SCRA 419)
parties, the non-inclusion of a necessary party does not FACTS:
*Definitions:
prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the Respondent Mar Tierra Corporation, through its president,
> Real party in interest the party who stands to be
judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the Wilfrido C. Martinez, applied for a P12,000,000 credit
benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit, or the
rights of such necessary party. Non-compliance with the accommodation with petitioner Security Bank and Trust
party entitled to the avails of the suit.
order for the inclusion of a necessary party would not Company. Petitioner approved the application and entered
> Indispensable party a party in interest without whom no
warrant the dismissal of the complaint. Lastly, for pro-forma into a credit line agreement with respondent corporation. It
final determination can be had of an action
parties, the general rule under Section 11, Rule 3 must be was secured by an indemnity agreement executed by
> Necessary party one who is not indispensable but who
followed: such non-joinder is not a ground for dismissal. individual respondents Wilfrido C. Martinez, Miguel J. Lacson
ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
Hence, in a case concerning an action to recover a sum of and Ricardo A. Lopa who bound themselves jointly and
accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
money, we held that the failure to join the spouse in that severally with respondent corporation for the payment of the
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the
case was not a jurisdictional defect. The non-joinder of a loan.
action
spouse does not warrant dismissal as it is merely a formal Respondent corporation was not able to pay all its debt
> Pro-forma parties those who are required to be joined
requirement which may be cured by amendment. balance as it suffered business reversals, eventually ceasing
as co-parties in suits by or against another party as may be
operations. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent
provided by the applicable substantive law or procedural
Conversely, in the instances that the pro-forma parties are corp and individual respondents.
rule.
also indispensable or necessary parties, the rules concerning RTC issued a writ of attachment on all real and personal
An example is provided by Section 4, Rule 3 of the Rules of
indispensable or necessary parties, as the case may be, properties of respondent corporation and individual
Court:
should be applied. Thus, dismissal is warranted only if the respondent Martinez including the conjugal house and lot of
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or
pro-forma party not joined in the complaint is an the spouses but it found that it did not redound to the
be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
indispensable party. benefit of his family, hence, it ordered the lifting of the
Pro-forma parties can either be indispensable, necessary or
attachment on the conjugal house and lot of the spouses
neither indispensable nor necessary. The third case occurs if,
Under Art. 147 of the Civil Code which was superceded by Martinez.
for example, a husband files an action to recover a property
Art. 108 of the Family Code, the conjugal partnership shall Petitioner appealed to CA. It affirmed RTC decision.
which he claims to be part of his exclusive property. The
be governed by the rules on the contract of partnership. Petitioned to SC.
wife may have no legal interest in such property, but the
Thus, Milagros is a co-owner of the subject personal
rules nevertheless require that she be joined as a party.
property in this case the credit incurred by spouses ISSUE: WON the conjugal partnership may be held liable for
Carandang. Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino an indemnity agreement entered into by the husband to
Quirino and Milagros de Guzman were married before the
and Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an action for accommodate a third party
effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988. As they did
the recovery thereof. HELD:
not execute any marriage settlement, the regime of
No. SC upheld the CA. Under Article 161(1) of the Civil
conjugal partnership of gains govern their property
In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for all debts and
relations.
real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the
the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, any one of them conjugal partnership.
All property acquired during the marriage, whether the
may bring an action, any kind of action, for the recovery of The court ruled in Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. de Garcia that,
acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or
co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, in acting as a guarantor or surety for another, the husband
registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed
namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of does not act for the benefit of the conjugal partnership as
to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. Credits are
the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. the benefit is clearly intended for a third party.
personal properties, acquired during the time the loan or
The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are In Ayala Investment and Development Corporation v. Court
other credit transaction was executed. Therefore, credits
not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be of Appeals, we ruled that, if the husband himself is the
loaned during the time of the marriage are presumed to be
accorded in the suit even without their participation, since principal obligor in the contract, i.e., the direct recipient of
conjugal property.
the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all the money and services to be used in or for his own
co-owners. business or profession, the transaction falls within the term
Assuming that the four checks are credits, they are assumed
obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. In
to be conjugal properties of Quirino and Milagros. There
Thus, Milagros de Guzman is not an indispensable party in other words, where the husband contracts an obligation on
being no evidence to the contrary, such presumption
the action for the recovery of the allegedly loaned money to behalf of the family business, there is a legal presumption
subsists. As such, Quirino de Guzman, being a co-owner of
the spouses Carandang. As such, she need not have been that such obligation redounds to the benefit of the conjugal
specific partnership property, is certainly a real party in
impleaded in said suit, and dismissal of the suit is not partnership.
interest.
warranted by her not being a party thereto. (The Civ Pro On the other hand, if the money or services are given to
issue was not the main issue in the case.) another person or entity and the husband acted only as a
Now, with regard to the discussion on the effect of non-
surety or guarantor, the transaction cannot by itself be
inclusion of parties in the complaint filed: in indispensable
deemed an obligation for the benefit of the conjugal
parties, when an indispensable party is not before the court,

4
Princess Morado

partnership. It is for the benefit of the principal debtor and RULING: conjugal partnership property without which, the disposition
not for the surety or his family. or encumbrance shall be void.
In the case at bar, the principal contract, the credit line No. Arturo and Esther appear to have been married before
agreement between petitioner and respondent corporation, the effectivity of the Family Code. There being no indication Inescapably, herein Arturos action for specific performance
was solely for the benefit of the latter. The accessory that they have adopted a different property regime, their must fail. Even on the supposition that the parties only
contract (the indemnity agreement) under which individual property relations would automatically be governed by the disposed of their respective shares in the property, the sale,
respondent Martinez assumed the obligation of a surety for regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The subject land assuming that it exists, is still void for as previously stated,
respondent corporation was similarly for the latters benefit. which had been admittedly acquired during the marriage of the right of the husband or the wife to one-half of the
Petitioner had the burden of proving that the conjugal the spouses forms part of their conjugal partnership. conjugal assets does not vest until the liquidation of the
partnership of the spouses Martinez benefited from the conjugal partnership. Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can
transaction. It failed to discharge that burden. Under the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of give what he has not.
the conjugal partnership. This right is clearly granted to him
by law. More, the husband is the sole administrator. The
wife is not entitled as of right to joint administration.
ABALOS VS MACATANGAY, JR. G.R. No. 155043 Uy vs CA GR No 109557 November 29, 2000
September 30 2004
The husband, even if he is statutorily designated as
FACTS: This case is a dispute between Teodoro L. Jardeleza
administrator of the conjugal partnership, cannot validly
FACTS: (herein respondent) on the one hand, against his mother
alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal
Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners Gilda L. Jardeleza, and sister and brother-in-law, the
partnership without the wifes consent. Similarly, the wife
of a parcel of land with improvements. Arturo made a spouses Jose Uy and Glenda Jardeleza (herein petitioners)
cannot dispose of any property belonging to the conjugal
Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement in favor of on the other hand. The controversy came about as a result
partnership without the conformity of the husband. The law
Macatangay, binding himself to sell to latter the subject of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.s suffering of a stroke which left
is explicit that the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership
property and not to offer the same to any other party within him comatose and bereft of any motor or mental
without the husbands consent, except in cases provided by
30 days from date. Full payment would also be effected as faculties. Said Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. is the father of herein
law.
soon as possession of the property shall have been turned respondent Teodoro Jardeleza and husband of herein private
over to Macatangay. Macatangay gave an earnest money respondent Gilda Jardeleza.
More significantly, it has been held that prior to the
amounting to P5,000.00 to be deducted from the purchase Respondent wife filed a petition for the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest of each
price of P1,300,000.00 in favor of the spouses. declaration of incapacity of his husband and assumption of
spouse in the conjugal assets is inchoate, a mere
sole powers of administration of conjugal properties, and
expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an
Subsequently, Arturo and Esther had a marital squabble authorization to sell one piece of real properties.
equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until it appears
brewing at that time and Macatangay, to protect his RTC granted said petition. Respondent opposed
that there are assets in the community as a result of the
interest, made an annotation in the title of the property. He and filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that such
liquidation and settlement. The interest of each spouse is
then sent a letter informing them of his readiness to pay the petition is essentially a petition for guardianship of the
limited to the net remainder or remanente liquido (haber
full amount of the purchase price. Esther, through her SPA, person and properties of Jardeleza Sr and that a summary
ganancial) resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the
executed in favor of Macatangay, a Contract to sell the proceedings was irregularly applied.
partnership after its dissolution. Thus, the right of the
property to the extent of her conjugal interest for the sum RTC denied the motion. CA reversed RTCs
husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not
of P650,000 less the sum already received by her and decision for lack of due process on the part of the
vest until the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal
Arturo. She agreed to surrender the property to Macatangay incapacitated spouse; it did not require him to show cause
partnership, or after dissolution of the marriage, when it is
within 20 days along with the deed of absolute sale upon full why the petition should not be granted.
finally determined that, after settlement of conjugal
payment, while he promised to pay the balance of the
obligations, there are net assets left which can be divided
purchase price for P1, 290,000.00 after being placed in ISSUE: WON petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza as the wife of
between the spouses or their respective heirs.
possession of the property. Macatangay informed them that Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. who suffered a stroke, a
he was ready to pay the amount in full. The couple failed to cerebrovascular accident, rendering him comatose, without
The Family Code has introduced some changes particularly
deliver the property so he sued the spouses. motor and mental faculties, and could not manage their
on the aspect of the administration of the conjugal
conjugal partnership property may assume sole powers of
partnership. The new law provides that the administration of
RTC dismissed the complaint, because the SPA could not administration of the conjugal property under Article 124 of
the conjugal partnership is now a joint undertaking of the
have authorized Arturo to sell the property to Macatangay the Family Code and dispose of a parcel of land with its
husband and the wife. In the event that one spouse is
as it was falsified. CA reversed the decision, ruling the SPA improvements, worth more than twelve million pesos, with
incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the
in favor of Arturo, assuming it was void, cannot affect the the approval of the court in a summary proceedings, to her
administration of the conjugal partnership, the other spouse
transaction between Esther and Macatangay. On the other co-petitioners, her own daughter and son-in-law, for the
may assume sole powers of administration. However, the
hand, the CA considered the RMOA executed by Arturo valid amount of eight million pesos.
power of administration does not include the power to
to effect the sale of his conjugal share in the property.
dispose or encumber property belonging to the conjugal
RULING: NO. ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment
partnership. In all instances, the present law specifically
ISSUE: of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both
requires the written consent of the other spouse, or
Whether or not the sale of property is valid. spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husbands
authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance of
decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by

5
Princess Morado

the wife for a proper remedy which must be availed of 1991; and P650,000.00 to the Los Baos Rural Bank on
within five years from the date of the contract implementing G.R. No. 165803 September 1, 2010 February 12, 1991, which then released the owners
such decision. SPOUSES REX AND CONCEPCION AGGABAO, Petitioners, duplicate copy of TCT No. 63377 to them.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise On March 18, 1991, the petitioners delivered the final
unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal vs. amount of P700,000.00 to Ma. Elena, who executed a deed
properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of DIONISIO Z. PARULAN, JR. and MA. ELENA PARULAN, of absolute sale in their favor.However, Ma. Elena did not
administration. These powers do not include the Respondents. turn over the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 63376,
powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have BERSAMIN, J.: claiming that said copy was in the possession of a relative
the authority of the court or the written consent of the other FACTS: who was then in Hongkong. She assured them that the
spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the Subject of this case are 2 parcels of land located, BF Homes, owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 63376 would be turned
disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the Paraaque City and registered under TCT No. 633763 and over after a week. On March 19, 1991, TCT No. 63377 was
transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the TCT No. 633774 in the name of respondents Spouses Maria cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of the
part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and Elena A. Parulan (Ma. Elena) and Dionisio Z. Parulan, Jr. petitioners.
may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance (Dionisio), who have been estranged from one another. Ma. Elena did not turn over the duplicate owners copy of
by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the Real estate broker Marta K. Atanacio (Atanacio) offered the TCT No. 63376 as promised. In due time, the petitioners
offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.. property to the petitioners, who initially did not show learned that the duplicate owners copy of TCT No. 63376
Art 124 does not apply to cases where the non- interest due to the rundown condition of the improvements, had been all along in the custody of Atty. Jeremy Z. Parulan,
consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give but Atanacios persistence prevailed. On February 2, 1991, who appeared to hold an SPA executed by his brother
consent. The situation contemplated in Art 124 is that one they and Atanacio met with Ma. Elena at the site of the Dionisio authorizing him to sell both lots.
where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has property thelatter showed to them the following documents: At Atanacios instance, the petitioners met on March 25,
abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be (a) the owners original copy of TCT No. 63376; (b) a 1991 with Atty. Parulan, they were also accompanied by one
obtained. . Such rules do not apply to cases where the non- certified true copy of TCT No. 63377; (c) three tax Atty. Olandesca. They recalled that Atty. Parulan smugly
consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give declarations; and (d) a copy of the SPA dated January 7, demanded P800,000.00 in exchange for the duplicate
consent. In this case, the trial court found that the subject 1991 executed by Dionisio authorizing Ma. Elena to sell the owners copy of TCT No. 63376, because Atty. Parulan
spouse "is an incompetent" who was in comatose or semi- property.On the same day, they paid P20,000.00 as earnest represented the current value of the property to be P1.5
comatose condition, a victim of stroke, cerebrovascular money, Ma. Elena then executed a handwritten Receipt of million. As a counter-offer, however, they tendered
accident, without motor and mental faculties, and with a Earnest Money, and stipulated that: (a) they would pay an P250,000.00, which Atty. Parulan declined, giving them only
diagnosis of brain stem infarct. In such case, the proper additional payment of P130,000.00 on February 4, 1991; (b) until April 5, 1991 to decide.
remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 they would pay the balance of the bank loan of the Hearing nothing more from the petitioners, Atty. Parulan
of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. respondents amounting to P650,000.00 on or before decided to call them on April 5, 1991, but they informed him
Consequently, a spouse who desires to sell real February 15, 1991; and (c) they would make the final that they had already fully paid to Ma. Elena. Thus, on April
property as such administrator of the conjugal property payment of P700,000.00 once Ma. Elena turned over the 15, 1991, Dionisio, through Atty. Parulan, commenced an
must observe the procedure for the sale of the wards estate property on March 31, 1991. action praying for the declaration of the nullity of the deed
required of judicial guardians under Rule 95, 1964 Revised On February 4, 1991, the petitioners went to the Office of of absolute sale executed by Ma. Elena, and the cancellation
Rules of Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the Register of Deeds and the Assessors Office to verify the of the title issued to the petitioners by virtue thereof.In turn,
the Family Code. TCTs in the company of Atanacio and her husband (also a the petitioners filed on July 12, 1991 their own action for
licensed broker). There, they discovered that the lot under specific performance with damages against the
Court affirmed in toto CAs decision. TCT No. 63376 had been encumbered to Banco Filipino in respondents.Both cases were consolidated for trial and
1983 or 1984, but that the encumbrance had already been judgment in the RTC.
cancelled due to the full payment of the obligation. They RTC ruled in favour of Plaintiff Parulan and declared the sale
In Bautista v. Silva, the Court erected a standard to
noticed that the Banco Filipino loan had been effected covered by TCT 63376 and 63377 as null and void. RTC
determine the good faith of the buyers dealing with a seller
through an SPA executed by Dionisio in favor of Ma. Elena. declared that the SPA in the hands of Ma. Elena was a
who had title to and possession of the land but whose
They found on TCT No. 63377 the annotation of an existing forgery, based on its finding that Dionisio had been out of
capacity to sell was restricted, in that the consent of the
mortgage in favor of the Los Baos Rural Bank, also effected the country at the time of the execution of the SPA; that
other spouse was required before the conveyance, declaring
through an SPA executed by Dionisio in favor of Ma. Elena, NBI Sr. Document Examiner Rhoda B. Flores had certified
that in order to prove good faith in such a situation, the
coupled with a copy of a court order authorizing Ma. Elena that the signature appearing on the SPA purporting to be
buyers must show that they inquired not only into the title
to mortgage the lot to secure a loan of P500,000.00. that of Dionisio and the set of standard sample signatures of
of the seller but also into the sellers capacity to sell. Thus,
The petitioners and Atanacio next inquired about the Dionisio had not been written by one and the same
the buyers of conjugal property must observe two kinds of
mortgage and the court order annotated on TCT No. 63377 person;22 and that Record Officer III Eliseo O. Terenco and
requisite diligence, namely: (a) the diligence in verifying the
at the Los Baos Rural Bank. There, they met with Atty. Clerk of Court Jesus P. Maningas of the Manila RTC had
validity of the title covering the property; and (b) the
Noel Zarate, the banks legal counsel, who related that the issued a certification to the effect that Atty. Alfred
diligence in inquiring into the authority of the transacting
bank had asked for the court order because the lot involved Datingaling, the Notary Public who had notarized the SPA,
spouse to sell conjugal property in behalf of the other
was conjugal property. had not been included in the list of Notaries Public in Manila
spouse.
Following their verification, the petitioners delivered for the year 1990-1991. CA affirmed the decision of the
P130,000.00 as additional down payment on February 4, RTC.Hence, the instant petition.

6
Princess Morado

Issues either or both Ma. Elena and the petitioners. The last
1) Which between Article 173 of the Civil Code and sentence of the second paragraph of Article 124 of the 2. Whether the offending spouse acquired vested rights
Article 124 of the Family Code should apply to the Family Code makes this clear, stating that in the absence of overof the properties in the conjugal partnership NO.
sale of the conjugal property executed without the the other spouses consent, the transaction should be
consent of Dionisio? construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting 3. Is the computation of net profits earned in the conjugal
Held: spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a partnership of gains the same with the computation of net
The petition has no merit. We sustain the CA. binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or profits earned in the absolute community? NO.
Article 124, Family Code, applies to sale of conjugal upon authorization by the court before the offer is
properties made after the effectivity of the Family withdrawn by either or both offerors. RATIO:
Code
The sale was made on March 18, 1991, or after August 3, 1. First, since the spouses were married prior to the
1988, the effectivity of the Family Code. The proper law to promulgation of the current family code, the default rule is
QUIAO V. QUIAO
apply is, therefore, Article 124 of the Family Code, for it is that In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the
G.R. No 176556, [July 04, 2012]
settled that any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal same are void, the system of relative community or conjugal
FACTS:
property made during the effectivity of the Family Code is partnership of gains as established in this Code, shall govern
governed by Article 124 of the Family Code. the property relations between husband and wife.
Rita C. Quiao (Rita) filed a complaint for legal separation
Article 124 of the Family Code provides:
against petitioner Brigido B. Quiao (Brigido). RTC rendered a
Article 124. The administration and enjoyment of the Second, since at the time of the dissolution of the spouses
decision declaring the legal separation thereby awarding the
conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses marriage the operative law is already the Family Code, the
custody of their 3 minor children in favor of Rita and all
jointly. In case of disagreement, the husbands decision shall same applies in the instant case and the applicable law in so
remaining properties shall be divided equally between the
prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for far as the liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and
spouses subject to the respective legitimes of the children
proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years liabilities is concerned is Article 129 of the Family Code in
and the payment of the unpaid conjugal liabilities.
from the date of the contract implementing such decision. relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
Brigidos share, however, of the net profits earned by the
otherwise unable to participate in the administration 2. The petitioner is saying that since the property relations
conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common
of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may between the spouses is governed by the regime of Conjugal
children because Brigido is the offending spouse.
assume sole powers of administration. These powers Partnership of Gains under the Civil Code, the petitioner
do not include disposition or encumbrance without acquired vested rights over half of the properties of the
Neither party filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal
authority of the court or the written consent of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains, pursuant to Article 143 of the
within the period 270 days later or after more than nine
other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, Civil Code, which provides: All property of the conjugal
months from the promulgation of the Decision, the
the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the partnership of gains is owned in common by the husband
petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Clarification,
transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the and wife.
asking the RTC to define the term Net Profits Earned.
part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may
be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by While one may not be deprived of his vested right, he may
RTC held that the phrase NET PROFIT EARNED denotes
the other spouse or authorization by the court before the lose the same if there is due process and such deprivation is
the remainder of the properties of the parties after
offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. founded in law and jurisprudence.
deducting the separate properties of each [of the] spouse
The power of administration does not include acts of
and the debts. It further held that after determining the
disposition or encumbrance, which are acts of strict In the present case, the petitioner was accorded his right to
remainder of the properties, it shall be forfeited in favor of
ownership. As such, an authority to dispose cannot proceed due process. First, he was well-aware that the respondent
the common children because the offending spouse does not
from an authority to administer, and vice versa, for the two prayed in her complaint that all of the conjugal properties be
have any right to any share of the net profits earned,
powers may only be exercised by an agent by following the awarded to her. In fact, in his Answer, the petitioner prayed
pursuant to Articles 63, No. (2) and 43, No. (2) of the
provisions on agency of the Civil Code (from Article 1876 to that the trial court divide the community assets between the
Family Code.
Article 1878). Specifically, the apparent authority of Atty. petitioner and the respondent as circumstances and
Parulan, being a special agency, was limited to the sale of evidence warrant after the accounting and inventory of all
The petitioner claims that the court a quo is wrong when it
the property in question, and did not include or extend to the community properties of the parties. Second, when the
applied Article 129 of the Family Code, instead of Article
the power to administer the property. decision for legal separation was promulgated, the petitioner
102. He confusingly argues that Article 102 applies because
The petitioners insistence that Atty. Parulans making of a never questioned the trial courts ruling forfeiting what the
there is no other provision under the Family Code which
counter-offer during the March 25, 1991 meeting ratified the trial court termed as net profits, pursuant to Article 129(7)
defines net profits earned subject of forfeiture as a result of
sale merits no consideration. Under Article 124 of the Family of the Family Code. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim being
legal separation.
Code, the transaction executed sans the written consent of deprived of his right to due process.
Dionisio or the proper court order was void; hence,
ISSUES:
ratification did not occur, for a void contract could not be 3. When a couple enters into a regime of absolute
ratified. The void sale was a continuing offer from the community, the husband and the wife become joint owners
1. Whether Art 102 on dissolution of absolute community or
petitioners and Ma. Elena that Dionisio had the option of of all the properties of the marriage. Whatever property
Art 129 on dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains is
accepting or rejecting before the offer was withdrawn by each spouse brings into the marriage, and those acquired
applicable in this case. Art 129 will govern.

7
Princess Morado

during the marriage (except those excluded under Article 92 support to him, and had abandoned her responsibility to the under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of
of the Family Code) form the common mass of the couples family, choosing instead to go on shopping sprees and properties owned in common by petitioner and respondent
properties. And when the couples marriage or community is gallivanting with her friends that depleted the family assets. are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled
dissolved, that common mass is divided between the Petitioner further alleged that respondent was not faithful, that the property relations of parties in a void marriage
spouses, or their respective heirs, equally or in the and would at times become violent and hurt him. The trial during the period of cohabitation is governed either by
proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the court declared their marriage void ab initio. Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. The rules on
value each one may have originally owned. The court ruled that A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should
MARRIAGE shall only be issued upon compliance with be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on
In this case, assuming arguendo that Art 102 is applicable, Article[s] 50 and 51 of the Family Code. It later altered it to co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code,
since it has been established that the spouses have no A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be [p]artition may be made by agreement between the parties
separate properties, what will be divided equally between issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the or by judicial proceedings. x x x. It is not necessary to
them is simply the net profits. And since the legal parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same
separationshare decision of Brigido states that the in the proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage.
net profits shall be awarded to the children, Brigido will still ISSUE: WON the trial court erred when it ordered that a
be left with nothing. decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued
JUAN SEVILLA SALAS, JR., petitioner, vs. EDEN
after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties
VILLENA AGUILA, respondent. [G.R. No. 202370.
On the other hand, when a couple enters into a regime of properties under Article 147 of the Family Code
September 23, 2013.]
conjugal partnership of gains under Article142 of the Civil HELD:
Facts
Code, the husband and the wife place in common fund the The court erred. The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC,
Juan Salas and Eden Aguila were married in September
fruits of their separate property and income from their work Branch 102, Quezon City that in a void marriage, regardless
1985. Five months after, Aguila gave birth to their daughter,
or industry, and divide equally, upon the dissolution of the of its cause, the property relations of the parties during the
Josan Jiselle. Salas left their conjugal dwelling and since
marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or
then no longer communicated with Aguila or their daughter.
obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the Article 148 of the Family Code.7 Article 147 of the Family
In 2003, Aguila filed a petition for nullity of marriage,
marriage. From the foregoing provision, each of the couple Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated
stating that they have no conjugal properties whatsoever.
has his and her own property and debts. The law does not and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but
In 2007, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the nullity of
intend to effect a mixture or merger of those debts or whose marriage is nonetheless void, such as petitioner and
marriage. After this declaration, Aguila filed a manifestation
properties between the spouses. Rather, it establishes a respondent in the case before the Court.
stating that she discovered two properties belonging to
complete separation of capitals. For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following
Salas. The registered owner of the Discovered properties is
elements must be present:
Juan S. Salas, married to Rubina C. Salas. Rubina is Salas
In the instant case, since it was already established by the 1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry
common-law wife. The RTC granted the petition of the said
trial court that the spouses have no separate properties, each other;
discovered properties that are among the conjugal
there is nothing to return to any of them. The listed 2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and
properties to be partitioned and distributed between Salas
properties above are considered part of the conjugal wife; and
and Aguila. However, Rubina filed a Complaint-in-
partnership. Thus, ordinarily, what remains in the above- 3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their
Intervention, claiming that the Discovered Properties are her
listed properties should be divided equally between the marriage is void
paraphernal properties. She claims that she authorized her
spouses and/or their respective heirs. However, since the All these elements are present in this case and there is no
brother to purchase the same, but because he was not well-
trial court found the petitioner the guilty party, his share question that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the
versed with legal documentation, he registered the
from the net profits of the conjugal partnership is forfeited property relations between petitioner and respondent.
properties in the name of Juan S. Salas, married to Rubina
in favor of the common children, pursuant to Article 63(2) of It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section
C. Salas.
the Family Code. Again, lest we be confused, like in the 19(1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are
The RTC found that Salas failed to prove his allegation that
absolute community regime, nothing will be returned to the declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under
Aguila transferred the Waived Properties to third persons.
guilty party in the conjugal partnership regime, because Articles 40 and 45 of the Family Code. In short, Article 50 of
The RTC emphasized that it cannot go beyond the TCTs,
there is no separate property which may be accounted for in the Family Code does not apply to marriages which are
which state that Salas is the registered owner of the
the guilty partys favor. declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code,
Discovered Properties. The RTC further held that Salas and
which should be declared void without waiting for the
Rubina were at fault for failing to correct the TCTs, if they
liquidation of the properties of the parties.
were not married as they claimed. The CA affirmed.
Since the property relations of the parties in art 40 and 45
Issue: Whether Rubina owns the Discovered Properties
are governed by absolute community of property or conjugal
ALAIN M. DIO v. MA. CARIDAD L. DIO Held/Ratio: No
partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition
October 25, 2012 Leave a comment On both Salas and Rubina's contention that Rubina owns the
and distribute the properties before a decree of annulment
FACTS: Discovered Properties, we likewise find the contention
could be issued. That is not the case for annulment of
January 1998 petitioner and respondent got married. On unmeritorious. The TCTs state that "Juan S. Salas, married
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the
May 2001, petitioner filed an action for Declaration of to Rubina C. Salas" is the registered owner of the
marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.
Niullity of Marriagw against respondent citing psychological Discovered Properties. A Torrens title is generally a
In this case, petitioners marriage to respondent was
incapacity under article 36. Petitioner alleged that conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to,
declared void under Article 3615 of the Family Code and not
respondent failed in her marital obligation to give love and because there is a strong presumption that it is valid and

8
Princess Morado

regularly issued. The phrase "married to" is merely this presumption. In a similar case where the ground for HELD: YES, they are conjugal. Petition denied; decision of
descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner. nullity of marriage was also psychological incapacity, we CA affirmed
Furthermore, Salas did not initially dispute the ownership of held that the properties acquired during the union of the
the Discovered Properties in his opposition to the parties, as found by both the RTC and the CA, would be RATIO: The Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships
manifestation. It was only when Rubina intervened that governed by co-ownership. 30 Accordingly, the partition of govern the property relations between Nicolas and Eusebia
Salas supported Rubina's statement that she owns the the Discovered Properties as ordered by the RTC and the CA even if they were married before the effectivity of Family
Discovered Properties. should be sustained, but on the basis of co-ownership and Code.
Considering that Rubina failed to prove her title or her legal not on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains.
interest in the Discovered Properties, she has no right to WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the
intervene in this case. The Rules of Court provide that only dated 16 March 2012 and the Resolution dated 28 June Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships established
"a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95322. before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights
or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus,
against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during
a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal. The
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286 April
of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not
14, 2004
be allowed to intervene in the action." conjugal. This is counter-balanced by the requirement that
FACTS: On 13 October 1988, Eusebia Retuya filed a
In Dio v. Dio, we held that Article 147 of the Family Code the properties must first be proven to have been acquired
complaint before the trial court against her husband Nicolas
applies to the union of parties who are legally capacitated during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal.
Retuya, Pacita Villanueva and Nicolas son with Pacita,
and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but
Procopio Villanueva. Eusebia sought the reconveyance from
whose marriage is nonetheless declared void under Article Nicolas and Eusebia were married on 7 October 1926.
Nicolas and Pacita of several properties (subject properties),
36 of the Family Code, as in this case. Article 147 of the Nicolas and Pacita started cohabiting in 1936. Eusebia died
claiming that such are her conjugal properties with Nicolas.
Family Code provides: on 23 November 1996. Pacita and Nicolas were married on
Plaintiff Eusebia, is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas,
ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are 16 December 1996. Petitioners themselves admit that Lot
having been married on October 7, 1926. Out of the lawful
capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each No. 152 was purchased on 4 October 1957. The date of
wedlock, they begot five (5) children. Spouses Retuya
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage acquisition of Lot No. 152 is clearly during the marriage of
resided at Mandaue City. During their marriage, they
or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be Nicolas and Eusebia.
acquired real properties and all improvements situated in
owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired
Mandaue City, and Consolacion, Cebu. Nicolas is the co-
by both of them through their work or industry shall be
owner of a parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he
governed by the rules on co-ownership. Since the subject properties, including Lot No. 152, were
inherited from his parents Esteban Retuya and Balbina Solon
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia, the
as well as the purchasers of hereditary shares of
while they lived together shall be presumed to have been presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code is that all
approximately eight (8) parcels of land in Mandaue City.
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be these are conjugal properties of Nicolas and Eusebia.
Some of the properties earn income from coconuts leased to
owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article,
corporations
a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the
other party of any property shall be deemed to have
In 1945, Nicolas no longer lived with his legitimate family Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat v. Wenifreda Balcom-
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's
and cohabited with defendant, Pacita Villanueva, wherein Tambuyat
efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
Procopio Villanueva, is their illegitimate son. Nicolas, then, G.R. No. 202805, 23 March 2015
and of the household.
was the only person who received the income of the
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of
properties. Pacita, from the time she started living in Facts:
his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation
concubinage with Nicolas, has no occupation. She had no Adriano Tambuyat and respondent Wenifreda
and owned in common, without the consent of the other,
properties of her own from which she could derive income. Balcom Tambuyat were married on September
until after the termination of their cohabitation.
From the time Nicolas suffered stroke until the present, his 16, 1965.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good
illegitimate son is already the one who has been receiving During their marriage, Adriano acquired several
faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership
the income of his properties real properties, including a 700 sq. m. parcel of
shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case
land located at Brgy. Muzon, San Jose del Monte,
of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children
Settlement between parties was asked but not met. Trial Bulacan, which was bought on November 17,
or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the
court in favor of Eusebia Natuya. Petitioners appealed. 1991. The Deed of Sale was signed by Adriano
respective surviving descendants. In the absence of
Eusebia died, and was then substituted by her heirs. CA alone as vendee.
descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party.
upheld trial courts decision One of the signing witnesses was petitioner
In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination
of the cohabitation. (Emphasis supplied) Rosario Banguis Tambuyat, who signed therein
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties acquired as Rosario Tambuyat. All this time petitioner
Under this property regime, property acquired during the
during the marriage between Eusebia and Procopio are Banguis remained married to Eduardo Nolasco.
marriage is prima facie presumed to have been obtained
conjugal When TCT covering the subject property was
through the couple's joint efforts and governed by the rules
on co-ownership. 29 In the present case, Salas did not rebut issued, it was made under the name of Adriano M.
Tambuyat married to Rosario E. Banguis.

9
Princess Morado

When Adriano died intestate on June 7, 1998, certificate of title when any error, omission or the name of Adriano M. Tambuyat married to
Wenifreda filed a Petition for Cancellation of the mistake was made in entering a certificate or any Rosario E. Banguis when, in truth and in fact,
subject TCT. She alleged that she was the memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate respondent Wenifreda and not Banguis is
surviving spouse of Adriano. That the TCT was certificate, or when there is reasonable ground for Adrianos lawful spouse. As correctly ruled by the
erroneously registered and made in the name of the amendment or alteration of the title. appellate court, the preponderance of evidence
Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. The CA sustained the trial courts decision, noting points to the fact that Wenifreda is the legitimate
Banguis. That per annexed marriage contract, that Banguis name was included in the TCT by spouse of Adriano. Thus, it cannot be said that
Banguis was still married to Nolasco. Wenifreda error or mistake. It held that the evidence Adriano and Banguis were husband and wife to
prayed that the TCT be cancelled. That a new adduced proved that Wenifreda and not Banguis each other; it cannot even be said that they have a
certificate of title be made out in Adrianos name, is the lawful wife of Adriano; that there is a valid common law relationship at all.
with her as the spouse indicated, and that Banguis and subsisting marriage between Nolasco and Philippine Law does not recognize common law
be ordered to surrender her copy of TCT. Banguis, and the latter admitted to such fact marriages. A man and woman not legally married
On her defense, Banguis claimed that she and during the course of the proceedings in the trial who cohabit for many years as husband and wife,
Adriano were married on Sept. 2, 1988, and court; and that Banguiss opposition to Wenifredas who represent themselves to the public as
thereafter lived together as married couple; that petition for cancellation of TCT is not real and husband and wife, and who are reputed to be
their union produced a son; and that the trial court genuine as to place the latters title to the subject husband and wife in the community where they
has no jurisdiction over the petition for property in doubt. live may be considered legally married in common
cancellation, which is merely a summary law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines. While it
proceeding considering that a thorough Issue: Whether the cancellation of the TCT filed by is true that our laws do not just brush aside the
determination will have to be made as to whether Wenifreda be granted by the court. fact that such relationships are present in our
the property is conjugal or exclusive property, and society, and that they produce a community of
since she and Adriano have a child whose rights Held: YES properties and interests which is governed by law,
will be adversely affected by any judgment in the Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for authority exists in case law to the effect that such
case. the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a form of co ownership requires that the man and
The RTC decided in favor of Wenifreda and directed certificate of title may be resorted to in seven woman living together must not in any way be
the RD of Meycauayan to cancel the TCT of instances, included are (1) when any error, incapacitated to contract marriage. that the
Banguis and in lieu thereof to issue a new omission or mistake was made in entering a provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly
certificate of title in the name of Adriano M. certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any providing to the contrary as in Article 144, when
Tambuyat married to Wenifreda Winnie Balcom duplicate certificate and (2) when there is referring to a spouse contemplate a lawfully
Tambuyat. RTC justified its decision by using Sec. reasonable ground for the amendment or wedded spouse.
108 of PD 1529 which states: court authorization alteration of title. The present case falls under the
is required for any alteration or amendment of a two instances because the RD of Bulacan
committed and error in issuing the disputed TCT, in

10