Civil Law and Practical Exercises
4) Upon legal separation, the donee being the guilty certain transfers from husband to wife or from wife to husband are
spouse;
5) If it is with a resolutory condition and the condition
is complied with;
6) When the donee has committed an act of
ingratitude.
Void donations by the spouses
ART 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage,
direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage
shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may
give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing.
Matabuena v. Cervantes reiterated in Agapay v. Palang
WON the ban on a donation between the spouses during a
marriage applies to a common-law relationship.
YES. If the policy of the law is to prohibit donations in favor of the
other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and
improper pressure and in uence upon the donor; then there is every
reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together
as husband and wife without bene t of nuptials.
Harding v. Commercial Union Assurance Co
Appellants are not in a position to challenge the validity of the
transfer, if it may be called such. They bore absolutely no relation
to the parties to the transfer at the time it occurred and had no
rights or interests inchoate, present, remote,or otherwise, in the
property in question at the time the transfer occurred. Although
Reviewer
2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either
prohibited in the article referred to, such prohibition can be taken
advantage of only by persons who bear such a relation to the parties
making the transfer or to the property itself that such transfer
interferes with their rights or interests. Unless such a relationship
appears the transfer cannot be attacked.
3 Absolute Community of Property
When it will commence
ART 88. The absolute community of property between
spouses shall commence at the precise moment that the
marriage is celebrated. Any stipulation, express or implied,
for the commencement of the community regime at any other
time shall be VOID.
What comprise the Community Property
ART 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the
marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of
all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the
celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.
What are excluded from the Community Property
ART 92. The following shall be excluded:
1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous
title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income
thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor,
testator or grantor that they shall form part of the
community property;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the
community property;
3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse
who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage,
and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such
property.
Property acquired during marriage using exclusive money of
one spouse.
ART 93. Property acquired during the marriage is
presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that
it is one of those excluded therefrom.
Charges and Obligations of the ACP
ART 94. The ACP shall be liable for:
1) The support of the spouses, their common children,
and legitimate children of either spouse;
2) All debts and obligations contracted during the
marriage;
3) Debts and obligations to the extent that the family may
have been bene ted;
4) All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major
or minor repairs, upon the community property;
5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made
during marriage upon the separate property of either
spouse used by the family;
6) Expenses for self-improvement;
31 of 245
Civil Law and Practical Exercises
7) Antenuptial debts insofar as they have redounded to
the bene t of the family;
8) The value of what is donated or promised by both
spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for
the exclusive purpose of self-improvement;
9) In case of absence or insufficiency of the exclusive
property of the debtor-spouse
a) Other antenuptial debts of either spouse,
b) the support of illegitimate children of either
spouse, and
c) liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of a
crime or a quasi-delict,
the payment of which shall be considered as advances
to be deducted from the share of the debtor-spouse upon
liquidation of the community; and
10) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the
suit is found to be groundless.
If the community property is insu cient to cover the
foregoing liabilities, except those falling under paragraph (9),
the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance
with their separate properties.
Ayala Investment v. CA
From the jurisprudential rulings of the Court, we can derive the
following conclusions:
a) If the husband himself is the principal obligor in the
contract, i.e., he directly received the money and services to
be used in or for his own business or his own profession,
Reviewer
that contract falls within the term “x x x x obligations
for the benefit of the conjugal partnership.” Here, no
actual bene t may be proved. Simply stated, where the
husband contracts obligations on behalf of the family
business, the law presumes that such obligation will
redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.
b) On the other hand, if the money or services are given to
another person or entity, and the husband acted only as a
surety or guarantor, that contract cannot, by itself, alone
be categorized as falling within the context of “obligations
for the bene t of the conjugal partnership.”
No presumption can be inferred that, when a husband
enters into a contract of surety or accommodation
agreement, it is “for the bene t of the conjugal partnership.”
Proof must be presented to establish benefit
redounding to the conjugal partnership.
Ownership, Administration,
Enjoyment & Disposition of ACP
Husband and wife are joint administrator
ART 96. The administration and enjoyment of the
community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In
case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail,
subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy,
which must be availed of within ve years from the date of
the contract implementing such decision.
When the spouse can be the sole administrator?
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the common
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration.
In the absence of authority or consent, the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be
construed as a continuing offer.
Neither spouse can dispose or donate a community property
without the consent of the other spouse.
ART 98. Neither spouse may donate any community property
without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may,
without the consent of the other, make moderate donations
from the community property for charity or on occasions of
family rejoicing or family distress.
The sale of a common property by one spouse only is VOID
PNB v. CA
The presumption of conjugality applies to property acquired
during the lifetime of the husband and wife. In this case, it
appears on the face of the title that the properties were acquired by
Donata Montemayor when she was already a widow. When the
property is registered in the name of a spouse only and there is no
showing as to when the property was acquired by said spouse, this is
an indication that the property belongs exclusively to said spouse.
And this presumption cannot prevail when the title is in the name of
only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved.
Docena v. Lapesura
Under the Family Code, the administration of the conjugal
property belongs to the husband and the wife jointly. However,
32 of 245
Civil Law and Practical Exercises
unlike an act of alienation or encumbrance where the consent of
both spouses is required, joint management or administration does
not require that the husband and wife always act together.
The signing of the attached certi cate of non-forum shopping only
by the husband is not a fatal defect. If anybody may repudiate
the certi cation or undertaking for having been incorrectly
made, it is the wife who may conceivably do so.
Uy v. CA
In regular manner, the rules on summary judicial proceedings
under the Family Code govern the proceedings under Article 124.
Such rules do not apply to cases where the non-consenting spouse is
incapacitated or incompetent to give consent. In such case, the
proper remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under
Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.
Villaranda v. Villaranda
Without the wife’s consent, the husband’s alienation or
encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the e ectivity of the
Family Code is not void, but merely voidable.
Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, et al.
WON the husband may validly dispose of a conjugal property without
the wife’s written consent.
Article 124 of the Family Code requires that the disposition of a
conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate
Reviewer
cases requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the
disposition is VOID. Respondent Norma may have been aware of
the negotiations for the sale of their conjugal properties. However,
being merely aware of a transaction is not consent.
It should be stressed that court authorization under Art. 124 is
only resorted to in cases where the spouse who does not give
consent is incapacitated.
Sps Carlos v. Tolentino 2018
The Court is disinclined to rule that the Deed of Donation is wholly
void ab initio and that the Spouses Carlos should be totally stripped
of their right over the subject property. In consonance with justice
and equity, We deem it proper to uphold the validity of the Deed of
Donation but only to the extent of Mercedes' one half share in the
subject property.
Dissolution of Absolute Community
Grounds for dissolution
ART 99. The absolute community terminates:
1) Upon the death of either spouse;
2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
4) In case of judicial separation of property during
the marriage under Articles 134 to 138.
Effect of de-facto separation on the ACP
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
ART 100. The separation in fact between husband and wife
shall not a ect the regime of absolute community except
that:
1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses
to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the
right to be supported;
2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction
of the other is required by law, judicial authorization
shall be obtained in a summary proceeding;
3) In the absence of su cient community property, the
separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily
liable for the support of the family. The spouse
present shall, upon proper petition in a summary
proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or
encumber any speci c separate property of the other
spouse and use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy
the latter's share.
Effect of abandonment or failure to comply with his/her
obligation to the family.
ART 101. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or
fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the
aggrieved spouse may petition the court
a) for receivership,
b) for judicial separation of property or
c) for authority to be the sole administrator of the
absolute community.
Meaning of abandonment?
33 of 245
Civil Law and Practical Exercises
The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of
three months or has failed within the same period to give any
information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie
presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal
dwelling.
Liquidation of the Absolute Community
supra 2014
Noveras v. Noveras
As a general rule, any modification in the marriage
settlements must be made before the celebration of marriage.
An exception to this rule is allowed provided that the modi cation
is judicially approved and refers only to the instances provided in
Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136 of the Family Code.
The grant of the judicial separation of the ACP automatically
dissolves the absolute community regime, as stated in the 4th
paragraph of Article 99 of the Family Code. Under Article 102,
liquidation follows the dissolution of the absolute
community regime and the following procedure should apply:
ART 102. Upon dissolution of the absolute community
regime, the following procedure shall apply:
1) An inventory shall be prepared.
2) The debts and obligations of the absolute
community shall be paid out of its assets. In case of
insu ciency, the spouses shall be solidarily liable
for the unpaid balance with their separate
properties.
3) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties shall
thereafter be delivered to each of them.
Reviewer
4) The net remainder of the properties of the
absolute community shall constitute its net assets,
which shall be divided equally, unless a di erent
proportion or division was agreed upon.
5) The presumptive legitimes of the common
children shall be delivered upon partition.
6) The conjugal dwelling and the lot shall be
adjudicated to the spouse with whom the
majority of the common children choose to
remain.
Effect if no liquidation is made after the death of a spouse on
the subsequent marriage of the surviving spouse
ART 103. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the
community property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding
for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving
spouse shall liquidate the community property either judicially
or extra-judicially within 6 months from the death of the
deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six months period,
no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance shall
be VOID.
Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage
without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a
Concept of Conjugal Partnership of Gains
mandatory regime of complete separation of property
shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage.
Quiao v. Quiao 2012
WON petitioner’s vested right over half of the common properties of
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
the conjugal partnership violated when the trial court forfeited them in
favor of his children pursuant to Articles 63(2) and 129 of the Family
Code? NO.
While one may not be deprived of his “vested right,” he may
lose the same if there is due process and such deprivation is
founded in law and jurisprudence.
More, in Abalos v. Dr. Macatangay, Jr., we reiterated our
long-standing ruling that:
Prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest
of each spouse in the conjugal assets is inchoate, a mere
expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable
estate.
The net pro ts of the conjugal partnership of gains are all the
fruits of the separate properties of the spouses and the
products of their labor and industry.
As to the de nition of “net pro ts,” Article 102(4) of the Family
Code, provides that net pro ts “shall be the increase in value between
the market value of the community property at the time of the
celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its
dissolution.”
4 Conjugal Partnership of Gains
ART 105. In case the future spouses AGREE in the marriage
settlements that the regime of CPG shall govern their property
relations during marriage. xxxx
34 of 245
 Civil Law and Practical Exercises
ART 106. Under the regime of CPG, the husband and wife
place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and
income from their separate properties and those acquired by
either or both spouses through their e orts or by chance, and,
upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net
gains or bene ts obtained by either or both spouses shall be
divided equally between them, unless otherwise agreed in the
marriage settlements.
What are the exclusive properties of each spouse?
ART 109. The following shall be the exclusive property of
each spouse:
1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her
Ownership, Enjoyment, and
own;
Administration of Exclusive Property
2) That which each acquires during the marriage by
What are the conjugal partnership properties?
gratuitous title;
3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by
barter or by exchange with property belonging to
only one of the spouses; and
4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of
the wife or of the husband.
Real property acquired by a Filipina
wife of a foreigner is EXCLUSIVE
Matthews v. Taylor
The rule is clear and in exible: aliens are absolutely not allowed
to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines, save only in
constitutionally recognized exceptions. Considering that Joselyn
appeared to be the designated "vendee" in the Deed of Sale of said
Reviewer
property, she acquired sole ownership thereto. This is true even if
we sustain Benjamin's claim that he provided the funds for such
acquisition.
Pacific Ace Finance v. Yanagisawa 2012
Eiji did not claim ownership of the Parañaque townhouse unit or his
right to consent to the REM as his basis for seeking its annulment.
Instead, Eiji invoked his right to rely on Evelyn’s commitment not to
dispose of or encumber the property, and the annotation of the said
commitment on the TCT.
ART 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:
1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at
the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition
be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;
2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or
profession of either or both of the spouses;
3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received
during the marriage from the common property, as well as
the net fruits from the exclusive property of each
spouse;
4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure;
5) Those acquired through occupation such as shing or
hunting;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the
partnership in excess of the number of each kind brought
to the marriage by either spouse; and
7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings
from gambling or betting..
Dela Peña v. Avila 2012
Although it is not necessary to prove that the property was acquired
with funds of the partnership, proof of acquisition during the
marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the
presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.
In the case Ruiz v. CA, this Court ruled that the phrase "married
to" is merely descriptive of the civil status of the wife and
cannot be interpreted to mean that the husband is also a
registered owner.
Rules to determine conjugality
Rule on property bought on installment by one spouse before the
marriage
ART 118. Property bought on installments paid partly from
exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from
conjugal funds belongs
a) to the buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested
BEFORE the marriage and
b) to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was
vested DURING the marriage.
In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership or by
either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or
owners upon liquidation of the partnership.
35 of 245
 Civil Law and Practical Exercises
Rule on amount received by one spouse during the marriage as
payment of credit
ART 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a
period of time belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which
may be collected during the marriage in partial payments or by
installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property
of the spouse.
However, interests falling due during the marriage on the
principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership.
Rule on ownership of improvements made by the conjugal
partnership on the exclusive property of one spouse
a) When the cost of the improvement and any resulting increase
in value are MORE than the value of the property, the entire
property shall belong to the conjugal partnership,
subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of
the owner-spouse; otherwise,
b) said property shall be retained in ownership by the
owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost
of the improvement.
In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be
vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the
time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
Muñoz, Jr. v. Ramirez, et al. 2010
As a general rule, all property acquired during the marriage,
whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or
registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be
conjugal unless the contrary is proved.
Reviewer
In the present case, clear evidence that Erlinda inherited the
residential lot from her father has su ciently rebutted this
presumption of conjugal ownership. Pursuant to Articles 92 and
109 of the Family Code, properties acquired by gratuitous title by
either spouse, during the marriage, shall be excluded from the
community property and be the exclusive property of each
spouse. The residential lot, therefore, is Erlinda's exclusive
paraphernal property.
Wong v. IAC
While there is proof that Romarico acquired the properties with
money he had borrowed from an o cemate, it is unclear where he
obtained the money to repay the loan. If he paid it out of his
salaries, then the money is part of the conjugal assets and not
exclusively his. Proof on this matter is of paramount importance
considering that in the determination of the nature of a property
acquired by a person during coverture, the controlling factor is
the source of the money utilized in the purchase.
The conjugal nature of the properties notwithstanding, Katrina's
indebtedness may not be paid for with them, her obligation not
having been shown by the petitioners to be one of the charges
against the conjugal partnership. In addition to the fact that her
rights over the properties are merely inchoate prior to the liquidation
of the conjugal partnership, the consent of her husband and her
authority to incur such indebtedness had not been alleged in the
complaint and proven at the trial.
Lilius v. Manila Railroad Co.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
It appears that there are two distinct theories as to whether
damages arising from an injury suffered by one of the spouses
should be considered conjugal or separate property of the
injured spouse.
The theory holding that such damages should form part of the
conjugal partnership property is based wholly on the proposition
that by the injury, the earning capacity of the injured spouse is
diminished to the consequent prejudice of the conjugal partnership.
It is held that the sum of P10,000 with interest thereon awarded to
Sonja Maria Lilius as damages is paraphernal property.
Charges Upon and Obligations of the CPG
ART 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and
the legitimate children of either spouse; however, the
support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the
provisions of this Code on Support;
2) All debts and obligations contracted during the
marriage;
3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse
without the consent of the other to the extent that the
family may have bene ted;
4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major
or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;
5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made
during the marriage upon the separate property of either
spouse;
36 of 245
Civil Law and Practical Exercises
6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or
complete a professional, vocational, or other activity for
self-improvement;
7) Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have
redounded to the bene t of the family;
8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses
in favor of their common legitimate children for the
exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a
professional or vocational course or other activity for
self-improvement; and
9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the
suit is found to be groundless.
If the conjugal partnership is insu cient to cover the
foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for
the unpaid balance with their separate properties.
Ros v. PNB 2011
Where the husband contracts obligations on behalf of the
family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, that such
obligation will redound to the bene t of the conjugal
partnership.
Thus, Ros' loan from PNB redounded to the bene t of the conjugal
partnership. Hence, the debt is chargeable to the conjugal
partnership.
Sps Buado v. CA and Nicol
Is the husband, who was not a party to the suit but whose conjugal
Reviewer
property is being executed on account of the other spouse being the
judgment obligor, considered a "stranger?"
Mariano v. CA and Sps Ching v. CA held that the husband of
the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a "stranger" to the case
prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has
redounded to the bene t of the conjugal partnership.
On the other hand, Naguit v. CA and Sy v. Discaya held that a
spouse is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of
execution was issued and is therefore justi ed in bringing an
independent action to vindicate her right of ownership over his
exclusive or paraphernal property.
Unlike in the system of absolute community where liabilities
incurred by either spouse by reason of a crime or quasi-delict is
chargeable to the ACP, in the absence or insu ciency of the
exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, conjugal property cannot
be held liable for the personal obligation contracted by one
spouse, unless some advantage or bene t is shown to have
accrued to the conjugal partnership.
Francisco v. Gonzales
A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only
a) when she purchases things necessary for the support of the
family, or
b) when she borrows money for that purpose upon her
husband's failure to deliver the needed sum;
c) when administration of the conjugal partnership is
transferred to the wife by the courts or by the husband; or
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
d) when the wife gives moderate donations for charity.
Failure to establish any of these circumstances means that the
conjugal asset may not be bound to answer for the wife's personal
obligation. Here, the liability incurred by Michele arose from a
judgment rendered in an unlawful detainer case against her and her
partner Matrai.
Alipio v. CA
A creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an
ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable
against the conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is for
him to le a claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent.
Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., et.al. 2012
Post-marriage modi cation of marriage settlements can take
place only where:
a) the absolute community or conjugal partnership was
dissolved and liquidated upon a decree of legal separation;
b) the spouses who were legally separated reconciled and
agreed to revive their former property regime;
c) judicial separation of property had been had on the ground
that a spouse abandons the other without just cause or fails
to comply with his obligations to the family;
d) there was judicial separation of property under Article
135;
e) the spouses jointly led a petition for the voluntary
37 of 245
 Civil Law and Practical Exercises
dissolution of their absolute community or conjugal
partnership of gains.
None of these circumstances exists in the case of Efren and Melecia.
Melecia has no exclusive property of her own and thus, Article 122
of the Family Code applies. The civil indemnity that the
decision in the murder case imposed on her may be enforced
against their conjugal assets after the responsibilities
enumerated in Article 121 have been covered.
Contrary to Efren’s contention, Article 121 allows payment of
the criminal indemnities imposed on his wife, Melecia, out of the
partnership assets even before these are liquidated. No prior
liquidation of those assets is required.
Payment of Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse by the CPG.
What is its difference from the ACP?
ART 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the
husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not
be charged to the conjugal properties partnership except
insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.
However,
a) the payment of personal debts contracted by either
spouse before the marriage,
b) that of nes and indemnities imposed upon them,
c) as well as the support of illegitimate children of either
spouse,
may be enforced against the partnership assets
a) after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding
Article have been covered,
Reviewer
b) if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive
property or if it should be insu cient;
at the time of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse
shall be charged for what has been paid for the purpose
above-mentioned.
Administration of the Conjugal Partnership
Sps Guiang v. CA
The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both
the husband and the wife. The absence of the consent of one
renders the sale null and void, while the vitiation thereof
makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can
rati cation cure the defect.
Here, private respondent’s consent to the contract of sale of
their conjugal property was totally inexistent or absent. Said
contract properly falls within the ambit of Article 124.
The nullity of the contract of sale is premised on the absence of
private respondent’s consent. Neither can the “amicable
settlement” be considered a continuing o er that was accepted
and perfected by the parties, following the last sentence of Art 124.
Sps Ravina v. Villa Abrille et al.
A sale or encumbrance of conjugal property concluded after the
e ectivity of the Family Code is governed by Article 124 of the
same Code that now treats such a disposition to be void if done
a) without the consent of both the husband and the wife, OR
b) in case of one spouse’s inability, the authority of the court.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
Roxas v. CA, et al.
WON a husband, as the administrator of the conjugal partnership,
may legally enter into a contract of lease involving conjugal real
property without the knowledge and consent of the wife.
NO. The joinder of the wife, although unnecessary for an oral
lease of conjugal realty which does not exceed one year in
duration, is required in a lease of conjugal realty for a period
of more than one year, such a lease being considered a conveyance
and encumbrance within the provisions of the Civil Code.
Sps Aggabao v. Parulan, Jr., et al. 2010
Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the transaction executed sans
the written consent of Dionisio or the proper court order was void;
hence, rati cation did not occur, for a void contract could not be
rati ed.
Article 124 categorically requires the consent of both spouses before
the conjugal property may be disposed of by sale, mortgage, or other
modes of disposition. Thus, the buyers of conjugal property
must observe two kinds of requisite diligence, namely:
a) the diligence in verifying the validity of the title covering
the property; and
b) the diligence in inquiring into the authority of the
transacting spouse to sell conjugal property on behalf of
the other spouse.
ART 125. Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership
property without the consent of the other. However, either
38 of 245
Civil Law and Practical Exercises
spouse may, without the consent of the other, make
moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property
1) for charity or
2) on occasions of family rejoicing or
3) family distress.
Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership
ART 126. The conjugal partnership terminates:
1) Upon the death of either spouse;
2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
4) In case of judicial separation of property during
the marriage under Articles 134 to 138.
ART 127. The separation in fact between husband and wife
shall not a ect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that:
1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses
to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the
right to be supported;
2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of
the other is required by law, judicial authorization
shall be obtained in a summary proceeding;
3) In the absence of su cient conjugal partnership
property, the separate property of both spouses
shall be solidarily liable for the support. xxxx
ART 128. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or
fails to comply with his or her obligation to the family, the
aggrieved spouse may petition the court
Reviewer
1) for receivership,
2) for judicial separation of property, or
3) for authority to be the sole administrator of the
conjugal partnership property, subject to such
precautionary conditions as the court may impose.
Quiao v. Quiao, supra 2012
On Conjugal Partnership Regime ART 129. Virtually same as
ACP
Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership
ART 130. Same as ACP
Heirs of Go v. Servacio 2011
The disposition by sale of a portion of the conjugal property
by the surviving spouse without the prior liquidation
mandated by Article 130 of the Family Code is not necessarily
void if said portion has not yet been allocated by judicial or
extrajudicial partition to another heir of the deceased spouse.
At any rate, the requirement of prior liquidation does not
prejudice vested rights.
Article 130 is to be read in consonance with Article 105 of the
Family Code. Hence, any disposition of the conjugal property
after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership must be made
only AFTER the liquidation; otherwise, the disposition is void.
The appropriate recourse of co-owners in cases where their consent
were not secured in a sale of the entire property as well as in a sale
merely of the undivided shares of some of the co-owners is an action
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
for PARTITION under Rule 69.
Domingo v. Sps Genaro 2016
Anastacio and Flora's conjugal partnership was dissolved
upon Flora's death.
In the case of Taningco v. Register of Deeds of Laguna, we held
that the properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the
regime of co-ownership among the surviving spouse and the heirs of
the deceased spouse until nal liquidation and partition. Thus,
Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any speci c portion of
the conjugal properties without an actual partition being rst done
either by agreement or by judicial decree. Nonetheless, Anastacio
had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided
interest in the subject property.
Separation of property and administration of
5 common property by one spouse during the
marriage
ART 135. Any of the following shall be considered su cient
cause for judicial separation of property:
1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced
to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction;
2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially
declared an absentee;
3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of
petitioner has been decreed by the court;
39 of 245
 Civil Law and Practical Exercises
4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the
latter or failed to comply with his or her obligations
to the family;
5) That the spouse granted the power of administration
in the marriage settlements has abused that power;
Effects of the decree of separation of property
and
6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have
been separated in fact for at least one year and
reconciliation is highly improbable.
Voluntary separation — How is it done?
ART 136. The spouses may jointly file a verified petition
with the court for the voluntary dissolution of the absolute
Revival of the previous property regime
community or the conjugal partnership of gains, and for the
separation of their common properties.
Toda, Jr. v. CA
The separation of property is not e ected by the mere execution of
the contract or agreement of the parties, but by the decree of the
court approving the same. It, therefore, becomes e ective only
upon judicial approval, without which it is void.
Espinosa et al. v. Omaña 2011
Whether Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in
the notarization of Marantal and Espinosa's "Kasunduan Ng
Paghihiwalay."
This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the
conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The
Reviewer
Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the
disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal
partnership, which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.
ART 137. Once the separation of property has been decreed,
the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains
shall be liquidated in conformity with this Code.
During the pendency of the proceedings for separation of
property, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership
shall pay for the support of the spouses and their children.
1. Revival if separation is based on Art. 135 = Pars 1 - 6;
2. Revival if separation is based on Art. 136 = Par 7.
ART 141. The spouses may, in the same proceedings where
separation of property was decreed, le a motion in court for
a decree reviving the property regime that existed between
them before the separation of property in any of the following
instances:
1) When the civil interdiction terminates;
2) When the absentee spouse reappears;
3) When the court, being satis ed that the spouse
granted the power of administration in the marriage
settlements will not again abuse that power,
authorizes the resumption of said administration;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
4) When the spouse who has left the conjugal home
without a decree of legal separation resumes
common life with the other;
5) When parental authority is judicially restored to the
spouse previously deprived thereof;
6) When the spouses who have separated in fact for at
least one year, reconcile and resume common life; or
7) When after voluntary dissolution of the absolute
community of property or conjugal partnership has
been judicially decreed upon the joint petition of the
spouses, they agree to the revival of the former
property regime. No voluntary separation of
property may thereafter be granted.
The revival of the former property regime shall be governed by
Article 67.
6 Regime of separation of property
ART 144. Separation of property may refer to present or
future property or both. It may be total or partial. In the
latter case, the property not agreed upon as separate shall
pertain to the absolute community.
Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion to their
income. Liability is solidary.
ART 146. Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in
proportion to their income, or, in case of insu ciency or
default thereof, to the current market value of their separate
properties.
40 of 245