You are on page 1of 3

Luis Lim, administrator, v. Isabel Garcia, widow of Hilario Lim (1907) 1.

WON Matea’s non-intervention in action for partition is proof that she
Appeal from a judgment of CFI Zamboanga has no interest in lands in question.
NO. The fact that she was not made party to such action means that the court
FACTS: decision did not prejudice her interest in any way. Defendants admit that Matea
 1903: Hilario Lim died intestate leaving a widow and 9 children. was not made a party & there’s no proof either that she had knowledge of such
 RTC: Inventory prepared by the administrator showed entire estate of the action. Legal basis: Code of Procedure in Civil Actions Sec. 277 states
deceased to be conjugal property except that proceedings in a cause against one person can’t affect the rights of
1) H&Lot in Zamboanga another.
2) Sum of P10,000.00
3) P700 sum paid for a certain lot but was later sold 2. WON Hilarion is the rightful owner of the land simply because he had
4) Not included in the inventory were 3 parcels of land presumed to be part of been administering lands throughout his marriage with Matea.
widow’s paraphernal/ separate estate. Hilarion indeed administered Matea’s property upon marriage. CC doesn’t
prohibit such. CC doesn’t say either that such property becomes his simply
 Administrator and children contend that none of the said property should be
because he had administered the same for a long time. Legal bases: CC Art.
treated as conjugal because Hilario Lim brought to the marriage property more
1382 states that wife shall retain ownership of her property w/c she brings to
than double the amount of the intestate estate while defendant widow brought
the marriage relation (perhaps by virtue of the CPG being the legal regime
nothing at the time of the marriage or thereafter. (ouch!)
then). CC Art 1384 states that wife will manage her property unless she
assigns the same to her husband thru a public document but again, this does
ISSUE: WON the above claim is tenable
not mean that such becomes the property of her husband. Defendants did not
make such claim. They only claimed that lands were acquired during Hilarion’s
HELD: Judgment affirmed.
1st marriage.
RATIO: No, unless evidence will be provided to establish otherwise. Art 1407 CC
3. WON Hilarion acquired lands during his marriage to Andrea de Leon.
holds:
No. Evidence show that lands were acquired by Matea from her father by
All the estate of the married couple will be considered as conjugal partnership
inheritance during her 1st marriage.
property (bienes gananciales – repeat after me...) unless and until it is proven
that it is a part of the separate estate of the H or W.
HOLDING: CFI decision reversed. Remanded for CFI to enter judgment that Matea
is owner & entitled to possession of lands.
Matea E. Rodriguez, plaintiff & appellant, vs.
Susana, Escolastico & Procesa De La Cruz, defendants & appellees
ROSETE v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF
Appeal from judgment of CFI Albay [Sept. 28, 1907]
96 Phil 560 (1954)
FACTS:
Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Zambales, CFI
 Aug. 21, 1905: Rodriguez filed complaint to recover certain pieces of lands from
Facts:
defendants. She alleged that:
Epifanio Fularon was convicted of murder and was sentenced to indemnify the
1. She owned lands & enjoyed furits of same from May 1882 – Feb. 1905.
victim’s heirs in the amount of P2K.
2. She acquired them from her deceased dad, Alejo Rodriguez, during her 1 st To satisfy said indemnity, a writ of execution was issued and the sheriff levied upon
marriage. 4 parcels of land belonging to the conjugal partnership of Epifanio and Fularon
3. Hilarion dela Cruz, dad of defendants, is her 2 nd husband & this suit is w/his Rosete.
consent. These were sold at public auction for P1,385 (balance: P739.34)
4. Hilarion had no interest/rt in said property. A year after, Gliceria redeemed 2 of the 4 parcels of land sold at the public auction
5. Feb. 20, 1905 – defendants commenced suit to against Hilarion for for P879, after the sheriff executed in her favor the corresponding deed of
partition of lands. Matea was not made a party in the action. repurchase.
6. March 29, 1905 – CFI decided in favor of defendants, decreeing their Then an alias execution was issued to satisfy the remaining balance and the sheriff
ownership & possession of lands. again levied upon the two parcels of land which Gliceria had redeemed. He set a
 Defendants: special denial w/special defense: March 29, 1905 CFI judgment. date for the sale but before said date, Gliceria filed a case for injunction to restrain
 CFI decided in favor of defendants, complaint dismissed. CFI claims that the sheriff from carrying out the sale—a case which did not prosper.
evidence show that lands were acquired by Hilarion during his married life As such, the sheriff was able to carry out the sale as originally scheduled and the
w/first wife, Andrea de Leon & not inheritance of Matea from her dad. property was sold.
The plaintiff amended her complaint praying that the sale of the sheriff be declared
ISSUES & RATIO: null and void which the court upheld, hence this appeal.
Note: The original issue they laid out was whether the sale made by the sheriff of that the said trustee would collect the rents to be derived from the property
the 2 parcels of land which were redeemed by Gliceria in the exercise of her right of while the lots remained unsold.
redemption is valid it appearing that they formed part of the four parcels of land  Instrument was presented to the register of deeds but it was denied. The COFI
belonging to the conjugal partnership which were originally sold to satisfy the same sustained the action of the register of deeds and denied the registration applied
judgment of indemnity awarded in the criminal case. The trial court had declared it for. The basis for the denial by the trial court was that the trustee was
null and void on the basis of a precedent—Lichauco v. Olegario. But because the authorized to collect the fruits of the paraphernal property while the lots
Court expressed doubt as to the applicability of the Lichauco case, another issue remained unsold or unalienated to other persons. Article 1385 and 1401 (3) of
which for purposes of this case is sufficient to decide the controversy was turned to, the Civil Code provides that such fruits are conjugal partnership property, the
that is: management of which corresponds to the husband, in accordance with article
1412 of the said Code, and the husband did not intervene nor give his consent.
Issue: Since it appears that plaintiff redeemed the two parcels of land in question
with money obtained by her from her father, has the property become paraphernal Issue: WON Dominga Angeles can enter into an agreement and declaration of trust
and as such is beyond the reach of further execution? without marital consent and therefore the instrument is valid and susceptible of
registration.
Held: Yes. Decision appealed to modified; Sale by sheriff, null and void; Deed of
repurchase revived and maintained. Held: Yes
The issue is answerable by yes for two reasons:
a. Gliceria redeemed the property, not in behalf of her husband, but as Ratio:
successor in interest in the whole or part of the property, it being then  In a deed of trust the grantor neither parts with nor conveys the rents of her
conjugal. Successor in interest includes one who succeeds to the interest of paraphernal property in favour of the trustee but merely authorizes it to collect
the debtor by operation of law or the wife as regards her husband’s them during the time the lots remain unsold. This authority is only a mere act
homestead by reason of the fact that some portion of her husband passes of administration which article 1384 expressly vests upon the grantor.
to her  Art. 1384 – the wife shall have the management of the paraphernal property
b. A property is deemed to belong exclusively to the wife (1) when acquired by unless she has delivered the same to her husband before a notary, for the
her by-right of redemption, and (2) with money belonging exclusively to her purpose of conferring its management upon him. In such cases it shall be the
(Art. 1396, old Civil Code) the duty of the husband to execute a mortgage for the value of any personalty
The interest which a wife has in conjugal property is known as “inchoate right of which may be so delivered to him or otherwise secure it in a manner prescribed
dower” or “contingent interest”. By virtue of this inchoate right, a wife has a right of with respect to dowry property.
redemption of a homestead as successor in interest of her husband. The cases  If the grantor is the legal administratrix of the property then she has the right
Hepfner v. Urton, Taylor v. Taylor and Malone v. Nelson, provided that the wife’s to collect the fruits thereof and she may delegate such power to other persons.
inchoate right of dower was a sufficient interest for the right of the wife to redeem If this would be denied then it would be tantamount to converting her from an
to base on. administratrix to a mere collector of rents.
The property in question has therefore become the exclusive property of the  The wife manages her paraphernal property that was not delivered to the
plaintiff. She has acquired it by right of redemption as successor in interest of her husband under the formalities prescribed by law, while such fruits remain
husband. It ceased to be the property of the judgment debtor (the husband). It can unliquidated, on the ground that they answer for the necessary and
no longer therefore be the subject of execution under a judgment exclusively indispensable expenses incurred in the administration and preservation of the
affecting the personal liability of the latter. property. Not till then does the husband acquire the right to claim them for the
conjugal partnership to which he is the sole administrator. The husband cannot
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. vs. Register of Deeds of Manila [May 5, 1934] claim the fruits in question for their conjugal partnership until a liquidation
Appeal from a judgement of the COFI of Manila thereof has been made by her.
 Failure to comply with the requisites of article 1387 does not render the
Facts: contract null and void but merely voidable and the right of action belongs to the
 October 26, 1933 – Dominga Angeles was married to Manuel Sandoval who husband or his heirs. Even if the instrument is defective it is susceptible of
resides in Palawan. registration,
 Dominga lives separately from her husband. She executed an instrument  Prior cases: November 8, 1898 – management of the paraphernal property
entitled “Agreement and Declaration of Trust” in favour of People Bank and conferred upon the wife by article 1384 of the Civil Code carries with it the
Trust Co, whereby she conveyed in trust he paraphernal property consisting of power to enter into contracts regarding the same, subject only to the limitation
3 parcels of land together with 2 buildings thereon. These lands would be contained in article 1387.
subdivided into small lots and would subsequently be sold either by cash or  October 16, 1918 – wife does not need marital consent; management should
instalments; that the trustee would redeem the mortgage constituted on said not be understood as limited by law merely to gathering fruits and collecting
property with funds derived from rents or sale thereof; that the trustee would rents and interests thereon and delivering them to the husband, for that would
grant a loan of P10,000 with which to redeem the mortgage in question; and be tantamount to converting the wife from an administratrix into a mere
collector of rents of the paraphernal property.
 1928 ruling – wife may legally perform every act not intended to alienate, b) reiterated at her deathbed
mortgage or otherwise encumber her paraphernal property, she being c) after Moises’s return from Dubai, UAE, again reiterated in front of the Miat
authorized to execute contracts arising from the administration of an estate, extended family members and attested to by formal document (Sinumpaang
and consequently to obtain loans, without marital consent, for benefit of such Salaysay)
property. d) letters of Moises to sons
 Logical interpretation that can be given to article 1384 in connection with article
1387 is that which grants the wife complete freedom in the management of her  Dec 1984: Moises paid the balance of the Paco property in full from Fraval
paraphernal property and renders marital consent as unnecessary except for Realty, Inc. but secured the title in his name as a widower. Romeo asserted his
acts expressly states in art. 1387, 995 and 1053. right and demanded for the owner’s duplicate of the Paco property w/c was
 Lack of marital consent does not render the act null and void but merely given to him.
voidable at the instance of the husband or of his heirs, on the ground that the  April 1988: After Romeo along w/ Alexander & his wife lived in the property, the
legal prohibition in question was not established in favour of third persons but couple decided to leave the house and agreed to sell Alexander’s share to
with a different end or purpose, that is in favour of the husband whom the law Romeo. Romeo gave him partial payment of P6,000.00.
wants to protect from possible damage to the conjugal partnership of which he  Feb 1988: Romeo learned from his godmother that the latter placed a
is the head. downpayment of P30K for the Paco property in favor of her son Virgilio.
 Dec 1988: Romeo & Virgilio Castro went to MTC to discuss status of the Paco
Friends, I tried looking for the articles for the case but when I checked the civil code (cd property. It was later sold to him by virtue of a Deed of Sale for P95K.
version provided by FLOP) it would not make sense. 1387 and 1384 does not deal with  Romeo filed an action to nullify such sale and to compel Moises & ro Alexander
paraphernal properties of the wife. CC art 1384 talks about rescission and damages and to execute a deed of conveyance or assignment of the Paco property to him
1387 deals with contracts wherein the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title. Sorry upon his payment of the balance of the agreed price.
talaga but I can’t find the codal for this case.   RTC declared sale of Moises-Virgilio as valid. CA ruled in favor of Romeo and
nullified deed of sale.
Trustee – bank
Trustor – Dominga Angeles
I think that when she entrusted her properties to the bank she has already an existing ISSUES:
mortgage and that Peoples bank granted her a loan to pay for that mortgage. What the 1) WON Paco property is conjugal or capital
bank would get in return is that they would collect the proceeds from the rent until such 2) WON there was a valid oral partitions of that land
time that the properties would be sold. 3) WON sps Castro were buyers in good faith

Why is it considered voidable if it was stated that the wife can manage her property if it HELD: CA decision affirmed. Costs against petitioners.
was not delivered to the husband? RATIO:
In my opinion it is voidable even if the it was mentioned that the wife can manage the 1) Clearly conjugal. Paco property acquired by onerous title during the marriage
property because the conjugal property has the rights to the fruits of the paraphernal out of the common fund. Art 153 of the New CC:
property… Before FC conjugal partnership of gains and therefore the conjugal property The ff are conjugal partnership property:
has the rights to the fruits of the separate property of the spouses after the expenses a. Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense
incurred have been deducted. The husband has the right to manage the conjugal of the common fund, ….
property and as such he would be affected if the paraphernal property of the wife would
be sold or if the supposedly remaining share (fruits-expenses) would not be given to the
2) YES! See manifestations cited above.
joint property of the spouses. The act is valid but it is voidable and only the husband and
his heir can assail it because they are the only party that are adversely affected. No law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to
be valid Moreover, the partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a
Sps Virgilio & Michelle Castro v. Romeo Miat (2003) public document. The requirement in Art 1358 CC is only for convenience; non-
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA compliance w/ which does not affect the validity or enforceability of the acts of the
parties as among themselves. (Pada-Kilario v. CA)
FACTS:
 Sps Moises & Concordia Miat bought 2 parcels of land during their marriage in 3) No, as manifested in the fact that they brought Moises to the Judge in MTC to find
the ff locations: out if Romeo had a right over the property. Virgilio even admitted that he knew
1) Parañaque: 132 sq. m. – w/c Moises wanted to be his alone Romeo was in possession of the title & Romeo then insisted that he is the owner
2) Paco, Mla: 70 sq. m., bought on installment basis – w/c was for their 2 sons, of the property.
Romeo & Alexander
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property and pays a full and fair price for
 The agreement re the partition of the Paco property was manifested in the ff it at the time of the purchase or before any notice of some other person’s claim or
events: interest in it. He must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in
a) even before death of Concordia possession of the real property. W/o such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be
regarded as buyer in good faith. (Republic v. De Guzman)