Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations
Topic: Family Code of the Philippines: Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage
Relevant Article/s: Article 147 of the Family Code
When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages
and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them
through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition
by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition
thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the
household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property
acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the
termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith
in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or
waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong
to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong
to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the
cohabitation. (144a)
Article 148 of the Family Code
In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both
of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned
by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule
and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue
to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who
acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner
provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. (144a)
Susan Nicdao Carino v Susan Yee Carino
G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001
Ponente: Justice Ynares-Santiago
Facts:
 During the lifetime of late SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, he contracted two marriages:
o June 20, 1969 – Susan Nicdao (2 children)
o November 10, 1992 – Susan Yee (no children in their 10 years of
cohabitation)
 SPO4 Cariño died on November 23, 1992, due to diabetes complicated by pulmonary
tuberculosis under the care of Susan Yee (2nd), who spent for his medical and burial
expenses.
 Petitioner Susan Nicdao (1st) was able to collect a total of Php 146,000 from the
“death benefits” (NAPOLCOM, Pag-ibig, etc.) while Susan Yee (2nd) only received
only Php 21,000 from GSIS Life, Burial and Burial (SSS).
 Respondent then Susan Yee filed the instant petition for the collection of sum of
money against Susan Nicdao of at least one-half of the Php 146,000 from the “death
benefits”.
 Respondent Susan Yee admitted that her marriage to the deceased took place
without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage between the
marriage and the deceased. She claimed she only became aware of it during the
funeral of the deceased.
  Respondent contended, however, that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is
void ab initio because the same was solemnized without marriage license as 1)
supported by the marriage certificate of the deceased which bears no marriage
license and 2) the certification from Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, MM.
 The RTC ruled in favor of Susan Yee, granting her half of the P146,000 plus
attorney’s fees.
 On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent Susan Yee is entitled to P73,000 death benefits
Ruling/s:
 NO
 Article 147 of the FC provides for cohabitation between a man and a woman who are
legally capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. While Article 148 of
the FC applied because of cohabitation between a man and a woman who are not
capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage.
 In this case, Both marriages are void ab initio (1st marriage w/o marriage license; 2nd
marriage contracted without the declaration of nullity of the 1st marriage). On the
effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, is the separation of property of the
spouses according to the applicable property regime. Given that the two marriages
were void ab initio, the applicable property regime is governed by provisions of Article
147 and 148 of the Family Code on “Property of Unions Without Marriage”. The first
marriage shall be governed by Article 147 because they are legally capacitated to
marry each other, nonetheless, marriage is void due to lack of marriage license. The
second marriage, on the other hand, shall be governed by Article 148 of the Family
Code because the marriage of respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is a
bigamous marriage, having been solemnized during the subsistence of a previous
marriage then presumed to be valid. The Court found that the disputed amount of
P146,000 is clearly remuneration, incentives, and benefits from governmental
agencies earned by the deceased as a police officer. Unless respondent Susan Yee
presents proof to the contrary, it could not be said that she contributed money,
property, or industry in the acquisition of these monetary benefits. Hence, they are
not owned in common by the respondent and the deceased, but belong to the
deceased alone and respondent has no right whatsoever to claim the same. By
intestate succession, the said “death benefits” of the deceased shall pass to his legal
heirs. And, respondent, not being the legal wife of the deceased is not one of them. In
contrast to Article 148, under the foregoing article, wages and salaries earned by
either party during the cohabitation shall be owned by the parties in equal shares and
will be divided equally between them, even if only one party earned the wages and
the other did not contribute thereto. 19 Conformably, even if the disputed “death
benefits” were earned by the deceased alone as a government employee, Article 147
creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, entitling the petitioner to share one-half
thereof. As there is no allegation of bad faith in the present case, both parties of the
first marriage are presumed to be in good faith. Thus, one-half of the subject “death
benefits” under scrutiny shall go to the petitioner as her share in the property regime,
and the other half pertaining to the deceased shall pass by, intestate succession, to
his legal heirs, namely, his children with Susan Nicdao.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Ynares-Santiago, held that Susan Yee was not
entitled to the death benefit amounting to P73,000, thus the petition was granted. The assailed
Decision of the CA and RTC are reversed and set aside.