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)
Victor Juaniza, Heirs of Josefa Leus, etc. et. al v Eugenio Jose, The Economic Insurance
Company Inc., and Rosalia Arroyo
G.R. No. L-50127-28, March 30, 1979
Ponente: Justice De Castro
Facts:
 Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator of the passenger jeepney.
 In 1969, said jeepney collided with a freight train of the Philippine National Railways,
resulting in the death of 7 and physical injuries to 5 of its passengers.
 At the time of the accident, Eugenio was legally married to Socorro Ramos but had
been cohabiting with Rosalia Arroyo for 16 years.
 The trial court rendered a decision ordering Eugenio and Rosalia to pay damages
jointly and severally to the victims of the accident.
 The lower court ruled against Rosalia and based her liability on Article 144 of the Civil
Code.
 A Motion for reconsideration was filed by Rosalia praying that the decision shall be
reconsidered insofar as it condemns her to pay damages jointly and severally with
her co-defendant, but was denied. She claimed that it was an error for the trial court
to consider her a co-owner of the said jeepney, just because she had cohabited for
many years as the wife of Eugenio.
 CA ruled in favor of Rosalia stating that the lower court erred in holding the latter
liable 'for damages resulting from the death and physical injuries suffered by the
passengers' of the jeepney registered in the name of Eugenio Jose, on the erroneous
 theory that Eugenio Jose and Rosalia Arroyo, having lived together as husband and
wife, without the benefit of marriage, are co-owners of the said jeepney.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Article 144 of the Civil Code is applicable in a case where one of the
parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to marry
Ruling/s:

 NO
 Article 144 of the Civil Code provides that: When a man and a woman live together as
husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the
beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through then work or
industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
 In this case, Eugenio is legally married to Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for
him to contract marriage with Rosalia, hence, the respondent cannot be a co-owner
of the jeep. This is in relation to Article 144 of the Civil Code which pertains only to
those common-law relationships where neither of the parties is suffering from any
legal impediment to marrying. The jeepney belongs to the conjugal partnership of
Jose and Socorro. There is no basis for the liability of Rosalia for damages arising
from the death of, and physical injuries suffered by, the passengers of the jeepney
which figured in the collision.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice De Castro, held that Article 144 of the Civil Code is
not applicable thus, Rosalia Arroyo is hereby declared free from any liability for damages and
the appealed decision is hereby modified accordingly. No costs