JUDICIAL SEPARATION OF PROPERTY

Partosa-Jo v. CA, GR82606 (18December1992)

(Abandonment and Separation for 1 year and reconciliation is highly
improbable)
Short facts: Respondents cohabited with 3 women and fathered 15 children.
Petitioner, claiming to be the first legal wife, filed a complaint against Jo for judicial
separation of conjugal property. No judicial separation in the dispositive portion.

The petitioner contends that the respondent court has misinterpreted Articles 175,
178 and 191 of the Civil Code. She submits that the agreement between her and the
private respondent was for her to temporarily live with her parents during the
initial period of her pregnancy and for him to visit and support her . They never
agreed to separate permanently. And even if they did, this arrangement was
repudiated and ended in 1942, when she returned to him at Dumaguete City and,
he refused to accept her.

Issue: Art 128. Abandonment

Doctrine: Abandonment implies a departure by one spouse with the avowed intent
never to return, followed by prolonged absence without just cause, and without in
the meantime providing in the least for one's family although able to do so. There
must be absolute cessation of marital relations, duties and rights, with the
intention of perpetual separation. This idea is clearly expressed in the above-quoted
provision, which states that "a spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when
he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without any intention of returning.

Art 135 par 6. Separation for at least 1 year and reconciliation is highly improbable.

Noveras v. Noveras, GR188289 (20August2014)

(Abandonment and Separation for at least 1 year and reconciliation
is highly improbable)
Short Facts: Due to business reverses, David left the USA and returned to the
Philippines in 2001. In December 2002, Leticia executed a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) authorizing David to sell the Sampaloc property for P2.2 Million. According to
Leticia, sometime in September 2003, David abandoned his family and lived with
Estrellita Martinez in Aurora province. Filed a petition for Judicial Separation of
Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler, Aurora. She relied on the 3 December
2003 Joint Affidavit and David's failure to comply with his obligation under the same.
Leticia and David had indeed separated for more than a year and that
reconciliation is highly improbable (because David had abandoned his family and
cohabited with another woman).

Issue: Art 135. par. 4 and 6 (abandonment and separated for at least 1 year and
reconciliation is highly improbable)

Doctrine: While actual abandonment had not been proven, it is undisputed that the
spouses had been living separately since 2003 when David decided to go back to
the Philippines to set up his own business. Second, Leticia heard from her friends
that David has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented herself as
Estrellita Novera.

Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one
year, the petition for judicial separation of absolute community of property should
be granted.

Relucio v. Lopez, GR138497 (16January2002)

(Abandonment)
Short facts: Allegedly, when Alberto abandoned his legal wife Angelina and their
children, Alberto maintained an illicit relationship with Imelda and used the conjugal
property of Angelina and Alberto in amassing properties. Angelina and her children,
however, never benefited from the same.

Causes of the action here are for the judicial appointment of Angelina as
administratrix of the conjugal partnership arising from her marriage to Alberto; for
the accounting of the conjugal partnership; for the forfeiture of Alberto's share in
the co-owned property acquired during his illicit relationship with Imelda

Doctrine: 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 for
receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole
administrator of the conjugal partnership property.

The administration of the property of the marriage is entirely between them, to

the exclusion of all other persons. Respondent alleges that Alberto J. Lopez is her
husband. Therefore, her first cause of action is against Alberto J. Lopez. There is no
right-duty relation between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support a
cause of action. In fact, none of the three elements of a cause of action exists.
 REGIME OF SEPARATION OF PROPERTY

Heirs of Caburnay v. Heirs of Sison, GR230934 (2December2020)

(Under CSP, the consent of the second wife is not needed for the
disposition of property from a previous marriage)
Short Facts: Teodulo Sison sold a parcel of land (from his first marriage) to Apolinario
Caburnay. However, Perla Sison (second wife) did not give her consent in the sale.

After Perpetua's death, there was no liquidation of the conjugal property of Teodulo
and Perpetua within the one-year period provided in Article 130. It must be recalled
that respondents executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estates of Teodulo and
Perpetua only after Teodulo's demise wherein the subject property was given to
Jesus. As it stands, the subject property is now registered in the name of Jesus.

Issue: Whether the CA erred when it ignored the clear provisions of Articles 92 and
103 in relation to Article 145 of the Family Code authorizing the surviving spouse to
dispose of his share in the conjugal property in the first marriage even without the
consent of his second spouse.

Doctrine: Petitioners invoke Article 103 of the Family Code, which provides that
should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without liquidation of
the prior marriage, then the mandatory regime of complete separation of property
will govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. petitioners assert that
Teodulo could validly dispose of his share in the property acquired during his first
marriage without needing to obtain the consent of his second spouse. They rely on
Article 145 of the Family Code which authorizes each spouse under the regime of
separation of property to dispose of his or her own separate estate, without need of
the consent of the other.

The Court ruled in Heirs of Go: the sale by Protacio, Sr. and Rito as co-owners
without the consent of the other co-owners was not necessarily void, for the rights
of the selling co-owners were thereby effectively transferred, making the buyer
(Servacio) a co-owner of Marta's share. This result conforms to the well-established
principle that the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally
possible to do so.

Likewise, Article 130 provides two consequences if no liquidation is effected within

the one-year period: (1) "any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal
partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void"; and (2) "[s]hould the
surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage x x x, a mandatory regime of
complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the
subsequent marriage.
XXXX
Rafael bought Levi's one-half share in the subject property in consideration of P500,000.00 as
evidenced by the Deed of Sale dated December 29, 2005. At that time, the conjugal partnership
properties of Levi and Vipa were not yet liquidated. However, such disposition, notwithstanding the
absence of liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties, is not necessarily void.
It bears stressing that under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and wife are
co-owners of all the property of the conjugal partnership. Thus, upon the termination of the
conjugal partnership of gains due to the death of either spouse, the surviving spouse has an actual
and vested one-half undivided share of the properties, which does not consist of determinate and
segregated properties until liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership. With respect,
however, to the deceased spouse's share in the conjugal partnership properties, an implied ordinary
co-ownership ensues among the surviving spouse and the other heirs of the deceased.
Thus, upon Vipa's death, one-half of the subject property was automatically reserved in favor of the
surviving spouse, Levi, as his share in the conjugal partnership. The other half, which is Vipa's share,
was transmitted to Vipa's heirs — Grace Joy, Jill Frances, and her husband Levi, who is entitled to the
same share as that of a legitimate child.
XXXX
The Court stated: In the words of the Court in Heirs of Go, Domingo, and Uy, the sale
by Teodulo of the subject property to Apolinario was not necessarily or totally or
entirely void, for his right as a co-owner to the extent of 9/16 thereof was
effectively transferred, making the buyer, Apolinario, a co-owner of the subject
property to that extent and a trustee for the benefit of the co-heirs of Teodulo, his
seven children, in respect of their combined 7/16 interest therein that was not
validly sold to Apolinario. Upon Apolinario's death, petitioners stepped into his
shoes and became co-owners together with Jesus of the subject property.

Issue: Whether the contract to sell entered by Teodulo Sison of his conjugal property
with his deceased first wife is entirely void for failure to effect liquidation.

No, In many instances, the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse
do not liquidate the conjugal properties and they keep them undivided. In such
case, a co-ownership is deemed established for the management, control and
enjoyment of the common property. Since the conjugal partnership no longer
subsists, the fruits of the common property are divided according to the law on co-
ownership; that is, in proportion to the share or interest of each party. That share or
part of the co-heir in the co-ownership prior to partition is pro indiviso, undivided or
abstract, not specific, delineated or demarcated by metes and bounds.
Hence, Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and
benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it,
and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the
co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

!!! Issue: Whether the consent of the 2nd Wife is necessary to dispose of the
Conjugal Property of the First wife.

No, Article 130 of the Family Code provides that a mandatory regime of complete
separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent
marriage should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without
liquidating the conjugal partnership property. Should the surviving spouse contract
a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a
mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property
relations of the subsequent marriage.

Simundac-Keppel v. Keppel, GR202039 (14August2019)

Short facts: Angelita and Georg entered into an agreement for the complete
separation of their properties.

Doctrine: In this connection, we further point out Article 77 of the Family

Code declares that marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be made
in writing and signed by the parties prior to the celebration of the marriage.
Assuming that the relevant German law was similar to the Philippine law, the
"Matrimonial Property Agreement," being entered into by the parties in 1991, or a
few years after the celebration of their marriage on August 30, 1988, could not be
enforced for being in contravention of a mandatory law

Under the Nationality Principle, the petitioner cannot invoke Article 36 of the Family
Code unless there is a German law that allows her to do so. A fundamental and
obvious defect of Angelita's petition for annulment of marriage is that it seeks a
relief improper under Philippine law in light of both Georg and Angelita being
German citizens, not Filipinos, at the time of the filing thereof. Based on the
Nationality Principle, which is followed in this jurisdiction, and pursuant to which
laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad, it
was the pertinent German law that governed. In short, Philippine law finds no
application herein as far as the family rights and obligations of the parties who are
foreign nationals are concerned.

PROPERTY RELATIONS OF UNIONS WITHOUT

MARRIAGE
Tanyag v Tanyag, GR231319 (10November2021)
Short facts: Arturo Tanyag and Dolores Tanyag married in 1979. In 2004, Dolores
petitioned before the Quezon City RTC for the annulment of their marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity. While the annulment case was pending, Dolores
filed with the La Trinidad, Benguet RTC a petition to have two parcels of lot there to
be declared as her paraphernal property. Arturo moved for the dismissal of the case
in Benguet on the ground of forum shopping. In 2015, the QC RTC granted Dolores’
petition

Doctrine: Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through
their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any
property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained
through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the
property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's
"efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household.

Yes. Upon the parties’ filing of a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage,
trial courts also acquire jurisdiction over matters incidental and consequential to the
marriage. Among these is the settlement of the parties’ common properties. By filing
another petition for the determination of which properties form part of the co-
ownership, a party commits forum shopping by splitting causes of action. Dolores
filed a separate Petition for Declaration of Paraphernal Property, asking a different
trial court to determine that the two parcels of land subject of the Property Case are
not conjugally owned. By doing so, Dolores committed forum shopping by splitting
causes of action.

Diaz-Salgado v. Anson, GR204494 (27July2016)

Short Facts: According to Luis, because there was no marriage settlement between
him and Severina, the above-listed properties pertain to their conjugal partnership.
But without his knowledge and consent, Severina executed three separate Unilateral
Deeds of Sale on January 23, 2002 transferring the properties covered by TCT Nos.
20618, 60069 and 5109 in favor of Jo-Ann, who secured new certificates of title over
the said properties

Doctrine: As there is no showing that Luis and Severina were incapacitated to marry
each other at the time of their cohabitation and considering that their marriage is
void from the beginning for lack of a valid marriage license, Article 144 of the Civil
Code, 89 in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code, are the pertinent provisions of
law governing their property relations. Article 147 of the Family Code "applies to
union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to
contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void for other reasons, like
absence of a marriage license." "Under this property regime, property acquired by
both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules
on equal co-ownership.

!!!Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the
acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto
jointly if said party's 'efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
household.

Relative to the properties they amassed during the period of their cohabitation,
Luis and Severina executed a notarized Partition Agreement which divided their
properties without court intervention.

Hence, even without the same, the partition was validly done by Luis and Severina
through the execution of the Partition Agreement.