age 1 of 49

CASL DIGLS1S

LLGAL SLAkA1ICN

I

AM No M1I001329 March 8 2001
(lormerly AM No CCA II No 99706M1I)

nLkMINIA 8CkIAMAN2ANC peLlLloner
vs
IUDGL kCUL k SANCnL2 M1C Infanta
angas|nan respondenL

k L S C L U 1 I C N
DAVIDL Ik
Iacts

omplalnanL avers LhaL she was Lhe lawful
wlfe of Lhe laLe uavld Manzano havlng been
marrled Lo hlm on 21 May 1966 ln San Cabrlel
Archangel arlsh AraneLa Avenue aloocan
lLy
1
lour chlldren were born ouL of LhaL
marrlage
2
Cn 22 March 1993 however her
husband conLracLed anoLher marrlage wlLh
one Luzvlmlnda ayao before respondenL
!udge
3
When respondenL !udge solemnlzed
sald marrlage he knew or oughL Lo know LhaL
Lhe same was vold and blgamous as Lhe
marrlage conLracL clearly sLaLed LhaL boLh
conLracLlng parLles were separaLed

8espondenL !udge on Lhe oLher hand clalms
ln hls ommenL LhaL when he offlclaLed Lhe
marrlage beLween Manzano and ayao he dld
noL know LhaL Manzano was legally marrled
WhaL he knew was LhaL Lhe Lwo had been
llvlng LogeLher as husband and wlfe for seven
years already wlLhouL Lhe beneflL of marrlage
as manlfesLed ln Lhelr [olnL affldavlL
4

Accordlng Lo hlm had he known LhaL Lhe laLe
Manzano was marrled he would have advlsed
Lhe laLLer noL Lo marry agaln oLherwlse he
(Manzano) could be charged wlLh blgamy Pe
Lhen prayed LhaL Lhe complalnL be dlsmlssed
for lack of merlL and for belng deslgned
merely Lo harass hlm




Issue

WCn Lhe respondenL !udge commlLLed gross
lgnorance of Lhe law when he solemnlzed a
marrlage beLween Lwo conLracLlng parLles
who were boLh bound by a prlor exlsLlng
marrlage

ne|d

ArLlcle 34 of Lhe lamlly ode provldes
no llcense shall be necessary for Lhe marrlage
of a man and a woman who have llved
LogeLher as husband and wlfe for aL leasL flve
years and wlLhouL any legal lmpedlmenL Lo
marry each oLher 1he conLracLlng parLles
shall sLaLe Lhe foregolng facLs ln an affldavlL
before any person auLhorlzed by law Lo
admlnlsLer oaLhs 1he solemnlzlng offlcer shall
also sLaLe under oaLh LhaL he ascerLalned Lhe
quallflcaLlons of Lhe conLracLlng parLles and
found no legal lmpedlmenL Lo Lhe marrlage

lor Lhls provlslon on legal raLlflcaLlon of
marlLal cohablLaLlon Lo apply Lhe followlng
requlslLes musL concur
1 1he man and woman musL have been llvlng
LogeLher as husband and wlfe for aL leasL flve
years before Lhe marrlage
2 1he parLles musL have no legal lmpedlmenL
Lo marry each oLher
3 1he facL of absence of legal lmpedlmenL
beLween Lhe parLles musL be presenL aL Lhe
Llme of marrlage
4 1he parLles musL execuLe an affldavlL
sLaLlng LhaL Lhey have llved LogeLher for aL
leasL flve years and are wlLhouL legal
lmpedlmenL Lo marry each oLher and
3 1he solemnlzlng offlcer musL execuLe a
sworn sLaLemenL LhaL he had ascerLalned Lhe
quallflcaLlons of Lhe parLles and LhaL he had
found no legal lmpedlmenL Lo Lhelr marrlage
6

noL all of Lhese requlremenLs are presenL ln
Lhe case aL bar lL ls slgnlflcanL Lo noLe LhaL ln
Lhelr separaLe affldavlLs execuLed on 22
March 1993 and sworn Lo before respondenL
!udge hlmself uavld Manzano and
Luzvlmlnda ayao expressly sLaLed Lhe facL of
Lhelr prlor exlsLlng marrlage Also ln Lhelr
age 2 of 49

marrlage conLracL lL was lndlcaLed LhaL boLh
were separaLed

8espondenL !udge knew or oughL Lo know
LhaL a subslsLlng prevlous marrlage ls a
dlrlmenL lmpedlmenL whlch would make Lhe
subsequenL marrlage null and vold
7


1he facL LhaL Manzano and ayao had been
llvlng aparL from Lhelr respecLlve spouses for
a long Llme already ls lmmaLerlal ArLlcle 63(1)
of Lhe lamlly ode allows spouses who have
obLalned a decree of legal separaLlon Lo llve
separaLely from each oLher buL ln such a case
Lhe marrlage bonds are noL severed Llsewlse
sLaLed legal separaLlon does noL dlssolve Lhe
marrlage Lle much less auLhorlze Lhe parLles
Lo remarry 1hls holds Lrue all Lhe more when
Lhe separaLlon ls merely de facLo as ln Lhe
case aL bar

nelLher can respondenL !udge Lake refuge on
Lhe !olnL AffldavlL of uavld Manzano and
Luzvlmlnda ayao sLaLlng LhaL Lhey had been
cohablLlng as husband and wlfe for seven
years !usL llke separaLlon free and volunLary
cohablLaLlon wlLh anoLher person for aL leasL
flve years does noL severe Lhe Lle of a
subslsLlng prevlous marrlage MarlLal
cohablLaLlon for a long perlod of Llme
beLween Lwo lndlvlduals who are legally
capaclLaLed Lo marry each oLher ls merely a
ground for exempLlon from marrlage llcense
lL could noL serve as a [usLlflcaLlon for
respondenL !udge Lo solemnlze a subsequenL
marrlage vlLlaLed by Lhe lmpedlmenL of a
prlor exlsLlng marrlage

learly respondenL !udge demonsLraLed gross
lgnorance of Lhe law when he solemnlzed a
vold and blgamous marrlage 1he maxlm
lgnorance of Lhe law excuses no one has
speclal appllcaLlon Lo [udges
8
who under
8ule 101 of Lhe ode of !udlclal onducL
should be Lhe embodlmenL of compeLence
lnLegrlLy and lndependence lL ls hlghly
lmperaLlve LhaL [udges be conversanL wlLh Lhe
law and baslc legal prlnclples
9
And when Lhe
law Lransgressed ls slmple and elemenLary
Lhe fallure Lo know lL consLlLuLes gross
lgnorance of Lhe law
10
II

AIDA 8AL2 pet|t|oner vs GA8kILL 8
8AL2 respondent
Gk 132S92

Iacts

1he 8eglonal 1rlal ourL of ebu declded lvll
ase no L816763 decreelng among oLhers
Lhe legal separaLlon beLween peLlLloner Alda
8anez and respondenL Cabrlel 8anez on Lhe
ground of Lhe laLLer's sexual lnfldellLy Lhe
dlssoluLlon of Lhelr con[ugal properLy
relaLlons and Lhe dlvlslon of Lhe neL con[ugal
asseLs Lhe forfelLure of respondenL's onehalf
share ln Lhe neL con[ugal asseLs ln favor of Lhe
common chlldren Lhe paymenL Lo peLlLloner's
counsel of Lhe sum of 100000 as aLLorney's
fees Lo be Laken from peLlLloner's share ln Lhe
neL asseLs and Lhe surrender by respondenL
of Lhe use and possesslon of a Mazda moLor
vehlcle and Lhe smaller resldenLlal house
locaLed aL Marla Lulsa LsLaLe ark Subdlvlslon
Lo peLlLloner and Lhe common chlldren wlLhln
13 days from recelpL of Lhe declslon

1hereafLer peLlLloner flled an urgenL exparLe
moLlon Lo modlfy sald declslon whlle
respondenL flled a noLlce of Appeal

1he Lrlal courL granLed peLlLloner Alda 8anez'
urgenL exparLe moLlon Lo modlfy Lhe declslon
on CcLober 1 1996 by approvlng Lhe
ommlLmenL of lees daLed uecember 22
1994 obllglng peLlLloner Lo pay as aLLorney's
fees Lhe equlvalenL of 3 of Lhe LoLal value of
respondenL's ldeal share ln Lhe neL con[ugal
asseLs and orderlng Lhe admlnlsLraLor Lo pay
peLlLloner's counsel ALLy Adellno 8 SlLoy
Lhe sum of 100000 as advance aLLorney's
fees chargeable agalnsL Lhe aforeclLed 34

ln anoLher moLlon Lo modlfy Lhe declslon
peLlLloner Alda 8anez soughL moral and
exemplary damages as well as llLlgaLlon
expenses Cn CcLober 9 1996 she flled a
moLlon for execuLlon pendlng appeal
8espondenL Cabrlel 8anez flled a
consolldaLed wrlLLen opposlLlon Lo Lhe Lwo
age 3 of 49

moLlons and also prayed for Lhe
reconslderaLlon of Lhe CcLober 1 1996 order

AfLer several exchanges of peLlLlons and
moLlons Lhe A rendered a declslon seLLlng
aslde Lhe CcLober 1 1996 declslon and
furLher denylng Lhe moLlons for
reconslderaLlon by peLlLloner Pence she
flled Lhe lnsLanL case before Lhe S alleglng
LhaL Lhe A erred ln seLLlng aslde Lhe
quesLloned order She furLher alleged LhaL an
acLlon for legal separaLlon ls among Lhe cases
where mulLlple appeals may be Laken
Accordlng Lo her Lhe flllng of a record on
appeal pursuanL Lo SecLlon 2(a) 8ule 41 of
Lhe 8ules of ourL13 ls requlred ln Lhls case
Powever slnce respondenL falled Lo flle Lhe
record on appeal wlLhln Lhe reglemenLary
perlod as provlded under Lhe 8ules of courL
(Sec 1b 8ule 30) Lhe same should be
dlsmlssed

Issue

WCn mulLlple appeals may be allowed ln an
acLlon for legal separaLlon?

ne|d

nC

xxx MulLlple appeals are allowed ln speclal
proceedlngs ln acLlons for recovery of
properLy wlLh accounLlng ln acLlons for
parLlLlon of properLy wlLh accounLlng ln Lhe
speclal clvll acLlons of emlnenL domaln and
foreclosure of morLgage 1he raLlonale
behlnd allowlng more Lhan one appeal ln Lhe
same case ls Lo enable Lhe resL of Lhe case Lo
proceed ln Lhe evenL LhaL a separaLe and
dlsLlncL lssue ls resolved by Lhe courL and held
Lo be flnal

ln sald case Lhe Lwo lssues ralsed by Lhereln
peLlLloner LhaL may allegedly be Lhe sub[ecL of
mulLlple appeals arose from Lhe same cause
of acLlon and Lhe sub[ecL maLLer perLalns Lo
Lhe same lessorlessee relaLlonshlp beLween
Lhe parLles Pence spllLLlng Lhe appeals ln
LhaL case would only be vlolaLlve of Lhe rule
agalnsL mulLlpllclLy of appeals
1he same holds Lrue ln an acLlon for legal
separaLlon 1he lssues lnvolved ln Lhe case
wlll necessarlly relaLe Lo Lhe same marlLal
relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe parLles 1he effecLs
of legal separaLlon such as enLlLlemenL Lo llve
separaLely dlssoluLlon and llquldaLlon of Lhe
absoluLe communlLy or con[ugal parLnershlp
and cusLody of Lhe mlnor chlldren follow
from Lhe decree of legal separaLlon19 1hey
are noL separaLe or dlsLlncL maLLers LhaL may
be resolved by Lhe courL and become flnal
prlor Lo or aparL from Lhe decree of legal
separaLlon 8aLher Lhey are mere lncldenLs
of legal separaLlon20 1hus Lhey may noL be
sub[ecL Lo mulLlple appeals

eLlLloner's alLernaLlve prayers LhaL ln case
we do noL dlsmlss Lhe appeal we reLurn Lhe
records Lo Lhe Lrlal courL and requlre
respondenL Lo flle a record on appeal or we
reLurn Lhe records Lo Lhe Lrlal courL and reLaln
only Lhe pleadlngs and orders relevanL Lo Lhe
appeal are unLenable lf we granL Lhe flrsL we
are effecLlvely saylng LhaL Lhe lnsLanL case ls
one lnvolvlng mulLlple appeals whlch lL ls noL
lf we allow Lhe second we are effecLlvely
applylng by analogy SecLlon 6 8ule 44 and
SecLlon 6 8ule 133 of Lhe 8ules of ourL
wlLhouL peLlLloner showlng supporL Lherefor
ln law or [urlsprudence

III

ACL1L vs CAkkIAGA
Gk No S3880 March 17 1994

IAC1S

oncepclon Alanls and Lnrlco aceLe were
marrled on Aprll 30 1938 and had a chlld
Lnrlco conLracLed a second marrlage wlLh
larlLa dela oncepclon Alanls learned of lL
on Aug 1 1979

oncepclon Alanls flled a complalnL on
CcLober 1979 for Lhe ueclaraLlon of nulllLy of
Marrlage beLween her ersLwhlle husband
Lnrlco aceLe and larlLa de la oncepclon as
well as for legal separaLlon beLween her and
aceLe accounLlng and separaLlon of
properLy She averred ln her complalnL LhaL
age 4 of 49

she was marrled Lo aceLe on Aprll 1938 and
Lhey had a chlld named onsuelo LhaL aceLe
subsequenLly conLracLed a second marrlage
wlLh larlLa de la oncepclon and LhaL she
learned of such marrlage only on AugusL
1979 8econclllaLlon beLween her and aceLe
was lmposslble slnce he evldenLly preferred Lo
conLlnue llvlng wlLh larlLa

1he defendanLs were each served wlLh
summons 1hey flled an exLenslon wlLhln
whlch Lo flle an answer whlch Lhe courL parLly
granLed uue Lo unwanLed mlsundersLandlng
parLlcularly ln communlcaLlon Lhe defendanLs
falled Lo flle an answer on Lhe daLe seL by Lhe
courL 1hereafLer Lhe plalnLlff flled a moLlon
Lo declare Lhe defendanLs ln defaulL whlch
Lhe courL forLhwlLh granLed 1he courL
recelved plalnLlffs' evldence durlng Lhe
hearlngs held on lebruary 13 20 21 and 22
1980 ll granLed legal separaLlon con[ugal
properLles halfandhalf 1hus Lhls cerLlorarl

ISSUL

WCn ll gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon ln
decreelng Lhe legal separaLlon of Lnrlco
aceLe () and 8 and held Lo be null and
vold ab lnlLlo Lhe marrlage of and larlLa
oncepclon

nLLD

?es 1he lvll ode provldes LhaL no decree
of legal separaLlon shall be promulgaLed upon
a sLlpulaLlon of facLs or by confesslon of
[udgmenL ln case of nonappearance of Lhe
defendanL Lhe courL shall order Lhe
prosecuLlng aLLorney Lo lnqulre wheLher or
noL colluslon beLween parLles exlsLs lf Lhere
ls no colluslon Lhe prosecuLlng aLLorney shall
lnLervene for Lhe SLaLe ln order Lo Lake care
LhaL Lhe evldence for Lhe plalnLlff ls noL
fabrlcaLed"

1he above sLaLed provlslon calllng for Lhe
lnLervenLlon of Lhe sLaLe aLLorneys ln case of
unconLesLed proceedlngs for legal separaLlon
(and of annulmenL of marrlages under ArLlcle
88) ls Lo emphaslze LhaL marrlage ls more
Lhan a mere conLracL

ArLlcle 103 of Lhe lvll ode now ArLlcle 38 of
Lhe lamlly ode furLher mandaLes LhaL an
acLlon for legal separaLlon musL ln no case be
Lrled before slx monLhs shall have elapsed
slnce Lhe flllng of Lhe peLlLlon" obvlously ln
order Lo provlde Lhe parLles a coollngoff"
perlod ln Lhls lnLerlm Lhe courL should Lake
sLeps Loward geLLlng Lhe parLles Lo reconclle

1he slgnlflcance of Lhe above subsLanLlve
provlslons of Lhe law ls furLher or underscored
by Lhe lncluslon of a provlslon ln 8ule 18 of
Lhe 8ules of ourL whlch provldes LhaL no
defaulLs ln acLlons for annulmenLs of marrlage
or for legal separaLlon 1herefore lf Lhe
defendanL ln an acLlon for annulmenL of
marrlage or for legal separaLlon falls Lo
answer Lhe courL shall order Lhe prosecuLlng
aLLorney Lo lnvesLlgaLe wheLher or noL a
colluslon beLween Lhe parLles exlsLs and lf
Lhere ls no c colluslon Lo lnLervene for Lhe
SLaLe ln order Lo see Lo lL LhaL Lhe evldence
submlLLed ls noL fabrlcaLed

IV

SA8ALCNLS vs CA
Gk 106169

Iacts

eLlLloner Samson Sabalones belng a dlplomaL
was asslgned ln dlfferenL counLrles and lefL Lo
hls wlfe Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of some of Lhelr
con[ugal properLles for 13years AfLer hls
reLlremenL he reLurned Lo Lhe hlllpplnes buL
noL Lo hls wlfe and chlldren

AfLer 4 years he flled an acLlon for [urldlcal
auLhorlzaLlon Lo sell Lhelr properLy ln San !uan
whlch belongs Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp and
would use Lhe proceeds of Lhe sale for hls
hosplLal and medlcal LreaLmenLs

8espondenL (wlfe) opposed Lhe auLhorlzaLlon
and flled an acLlon for legal separaLlon
8espondenL alleges LhaL LhaL Lhe house ln San
!uan was belng occupled by her and Lhelr
chlldren and Lhe loL ln lorbes ark ls belng
leased Lo noblmlchl lzuml and LhaL her
age S of 49

husband never reLurned Lo Lhem belng Lhe
leglLlmaLe famlly and llved ln a separaLe
house ln lalrvlew wlLh 1helma urameng and
Lhelr chlldren

!udge umall found LhaL peLlLloner conLracLed
a blgamous marrlage wlLh 1helma urameng
ourL granLed Lhe decree of legal separaLlon
and Lhe peLlLloner ls noL enLlLled Lo share ln
Lhe con[ugal properLles and he ls noL enLlLled
Lo supporL from hls respondenL wlfe

ueclslon of lower courL was appealed and was
granLed Lhe wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon
flled by Lhe respondenL Lo en[oln Lhe
peLlLloner from lnLerferlng ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhelr properLles eLlLloner
argues LhaL Lhe law provldes for [olnL
admlnlsLraLlon of con[ugal properLles and no
ln[uncLlve rellef can be lssued agalnsL Lhe
oLher because no rlghL wlll be vlolaLed

Issue

WCn arLlcle124 ls appllcable as regards Lo
[olnL admlnlsLraLlon of con[ugal properLles

ne|d

CranL for prellmlnary ln[uncLlon ls valld lL ls
necessary Lo proLecL Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe
respondenL and her chlldren and prevenL Lhe
dlsslpaLlon of Lhe con[ugal asseLs ln[uncLlon
has noL permanenLly lnsLalled Lhe respondenL
as Lhe admlnlsLraLor of Lhe whole con[ugal
asseLs

resence of 2 requlremenLs of valld
ln[uncLlon

4 LxlsLence of rlghLs of Lhe
respondenLs Lo a share of Lhe
con[ugal esLaLe
4 1here ls evldence LhaL
enLrusLlng Lhe esLaLe Lo Lhe
peLlLloner may resulL Lo Lhe
lrresponslble dlsposlLlon of
asseLs LhaL would cause ln[ury
Lo hls wlfe and chlldren

rlmary purpose of Lhe provlslonal remedy of
ln[uncLlon ls Lo preserve Lhe sLaLus quo of Lhe
sub[ecL of Lhe acLlon of Lhe relaLlons beLween
Lhe parLles and Lhus proLecL Lhe rlghLs of Lhe
plalnLlffs respecLlng Lhese maLLers durlng Lhe
pendency of Lhe sulL

1wln requlremenLs of valld ln[uncLlon
4 LxlsLence of a rlghL
4 AcLual or LhreaLened vlolaLlon
4
ArLlcle 61 afLer furLher peLlLlon for legal
separaLlon has been flled Lhe Lrlal courL shall
ln Lhe absence of a wrlLLen agreemenL
beLween Lhe couple would appolnL elLher one
of Lhe spouses or a 3
rd
person Lo acL as Lhe
admlnlsLraLor

V

CNG VS CNG

VI

SCCIAL SLCUkI1 SS1LM eLlLloner vs
kCSANNA n AGUAS IANL1 n AGUAS and
m|nor ILLNN n AGUAS represented by her
Lega| Guard|an kCSANNA n AGUAS
8espondenLs
Gk No 16SS46 Iebruary 27 2006

Iacts

ablo Aguas dled on uecember 8 1996
ablo's survlvlng spouse 8osanna P Aguas
flled a clalm wlLh Lhe SSS for deaLh beneflLs
8osanna lndlcaLed ln her clalm LhaL ablo was
llkewlse survlved by hls mlnor chlld !eylnn
Per clalm for monLhly penslon was seLLled

ln Aprll 1997 Lhe SSS recelved a sworn leLLer
from LeLlcla AguasMacaplnlac ablo's slsLer
conLesLlng 8osanna's clalm for deaLh beneflLs
She alleged LhaL 8osanna abandoned Lhe
famlly abode approxlmaLely more Lhan slx
years before and llved wlLh anoLher man and
LhaL ablo had no legal chlldren wlLh 8osanna

1he SSS suspended Lhe paymenL of 8osanna
and !eylnn's monLhly penslon ln an
lnvesLlgaLlon lL was reporLed LhaL Lhe
age 6 of 49

deceased had no legal chlldren wlLh 8osanna
and LhaL 8osanna lefL Lhe deceased slx years
before hls deaLh and llved wlLh 8omeo whlle
she was sLlll pregnanL wlLh !enelyn

8osanna was advlsed Lo refund Lo Lhe SSS Lhe
amounL represenLlng Lhe LoLal deaLh beneflLs
released Lo her and !enelyn 8osanna and
!eylnn flle a clalm/peLlLlon for Lhe
8esLoraLlon/aymenL of enslons wlLh Lhe
Soclal SecurlLy ommlsslon (SS) !aneL P
Aguas who also clalmed Lo be Lhe chlld of Lhe
deceased and 8osanna now [olned Lhem as
clalmanL

SS rendered a declslon denylng Lhe clalms
for lack of merlL and orderlng 8osanna Lo
lmmedlaLely refund Lhe SSS Cn Appeal Lhe
A rendered a declslon ln favor of 8osanna

Issue

WheLher or noL respondenLs are enLlLled Lo
Lhe penslon beneflL

ne|d

1he peLlLlon ls parLly merlLorlous

!eylnn's clalm ls [usLlfled by Lhe phoLocopy of
her blrLh cerLlflcaLe whlch bears Lhe slgnaLure
of ablo under ArLlcle 164 of Lhe lamlly
ode chlldren concelved or born durlng Lhe
marrlage of Lhe parenLs are leglLlmaLe
lmpugnlng Lhe leglLlmacy of a chlld ls a sLrlcLly
personal rlghL of Lhe husband or ln
excepLlonal cases hls helrs ln Lhls case Lhere
ls no showlng LhaL ablo challenged Lhe
leglLlmacy of !eylnn durlng hls llfeLlme Pence
!eylnn's sLaLus as a leglLlmaLe chlld can no
longer be conLesLed

1he presumpLlon of leglLlmacy under ArLlcle
164 however can noL exLend Lo !aneL
because her daLe of blrLh was noL
subsLanLlally proven Such presumpLlon may
be avalled only upon convlnclng proof of Lhe
facLual basls 8espondenLs submlLLed a
phoLocopy of !aneL's alleged blrLh cerLlflcaLe
Powever Lhe ourL cannoL glve sald blrLh
cerLlflcaLe Lhe same probaLlve welghL as
!eylnn's because lL was noL verlfled ln any way
by Lhe clvll reglsLer

Cn Lhe clalms of 8osanna lL bears sLresslng
LhaL for her Lo quallfy as a prlmary
beneflclary she musL prove LhaL she was Lhe
leglLlmaLe spouse dependenL for supporL
from Lhe employee 1he clalmanLspouse
musL Lherefore esLabllsh Lwo quallfylng
facLors (1) LhaL she ls Lhe leglLlmaLe spouse
and (2) LhaL she ls dependenL upon Lhe
member for supporL

8osanna presenLed a copy of Lhelr marrlage
cerLlflcaLe verlfled wlLh Lhe clvll reglsLer 8uL
wheLher or noL 8osanna has sufflclenLly
esLabllshed LhaL she was sLlll dependenL on
ablo aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh remalns Lo be
resolved lndeed a husband and wlfe are
obllged Lo supporL each oLher buL wheLher
one ls acLually dependenL for supporL upon
Lhe oLher ls someLhlng LhaL has Lo be shown
lL cannoL be presumed from Lhe facL of
marrlage alone

1he obvlous concluslon Lhen ls LhaL a wlfe
who ls already separaLed de facLo from her
husband cannoL be sald Lo be dependenL for
supporL upon Lhe husband absenL any
showlng Lo Lhe conLrary onversely lf lL ls
proved LhaL Lhe husband and wlfe were sLlll
llvlng LogeLher aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh lL
would be safe Lo presume LhaL she was
dependenL on Lhe husband for supporL
unless lL ls shown LhaL she ls capable of
provldlng for herself

Cnly !eylnn ls enLlLled Lo Lhe SSS deaLh
beneflLs accrulng from Lhe deaLh of ablo as
lL was esLabllshed LhaL she ls hls leglLlmaLe
chlld Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe records show
LhaL !aneL was merely adopLed by Lhe
spouses buL Lhere are no legal papers Lo
prove lL hence she cannoL quallfy as a
prlmary beneflclary llnally whlle 8osanna
was Lhe leglLlmaLe wlfe of ablo she ls
llkewlse noL quallfled as a prlmary beneflclary
slnce she falled Lo presenL any proof Lo show
LhaL aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh she was sLlll
dependenL on hlm for supporL even lf Lhey
were already llvlng separaLely
age 7 of 49

kIGn1S AND C8LIGA1ICNS 8L1WLLN
nUNS8AND AND WIIL

VII

VAN DCkN vs kCMILLC Ik

(Gk No L68470 Cctober 8 198S)

Iacts

Allce van uorn a llllplno clLlzen and 8lchard
upLon an Amerlcan clLlzen were marrled ln
Pongkong ln 1972 AfLer Lhe marrlage Lhey
reslded ln Lhe hlllpplnes and begoL Lwo
chlldren ln 1982 Lhe parLles were dlvorced ln
nevada unlLed SLaLes Allce has remarrled ln
nevada Lhls Llme Lo 1heodore van uorn

ln 1983 8lchard flled sulL agalnsL Allce wlLh
Lhe 81 sLaLlng LhaL her buslness ln LrmlLa
Manlla ls con[ugal properLy of Lhe parLles Pe
asks LhaL Allce be ordered Lo render an
accounLlng of LhaL buslness and LhaL 8lchard
be declared wlLh rlghL Lo manage Lhe con[ugal
properLy Allce moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe case on
Lhe ground LhaL Lhe cause of acLlon ls barred
by prevlous [udgmenL ln Lhe dlvorce
proceedlngs before Lhe nevada ourL whereln
respondenL had acknowledged LhaL he and
peLlLloner had no communlLy properLy as of
!une 11 1982 1he ourL below denled Lhe
MoLlon Lo ulsmlss Pence Lhls peLlLlon

ln her peLlLlon Allce conLends LhaL 8lchard ls
esLopped from clalmlng on Lhe alleged
con[ugal properLy because of Lhe
represenLaLlon he made ln Lhe dlvorce
proceedlngs before Lhe Amerlcan ourL LhaL
Lhey had no communlLy of properLy hence
barred by prlor [udgmenL 8lchard avers LhaL
Lhe ulvorce uecree lssued by Lhe nevada
ourL cannoL prevall over Lhe prohlblLlve laws
of Lhe hlllpplnes and lLs declared naLlonal
pollcy Lhe acLs and declaraLlon of a forelgn
ourL cannoL especlally lf Lhe same ls
conLrary Lo publlc pollcy dlvesL hlllpplne
ourLs of [urlsdlcLlon Lo enLerLaln maLLers
wlLhln lLs [urlsdlcLlon


Issue

WheLher or noL 8lchard sLlll has Lhe rlghL over
Lhe alleged con[ugal properLles

ku||ng

1here can be no quesLlon as Lo Lhe valldlLy of
LhaL nevada dlvorce ln any of Lhe SLaLes of
Lhe unlLed SLaLes 1he decree ls blndlng on
8lchard as an Amerlcan clLlzen lL ls Lrue LhaL
owlng Lo Lhe naLlonallLy prlnclple embodled ln
ArLlcle 13 of Lhe lvll ode only hlllpplne
naLlonals are covered by Lhe pollcy agalnsL
absoluLe dlvorces Lhe same belng consldered
conLrary Lo our concepL of publlc pollce and
morallLy Powever allens may obLaln dlvorces
abroad whlch may be recognlzed ln Lhe
hlllpplnes provlded Lhey are valld accordlng
Lo Lhelr naLlonal law ln Lhls case Lhe dlvorce
ln nevada released 8lchard from Lhe marrlage
from Lhe sLandards of Amerlcan law under
whlch Jlvotce Jlssolves tbe mottloqe

1hus pursuanL Lo hls naLlonal law 8lchard ls
no longer Lhe husband of Allce Pe would
have no sLandlng Lo sue ln Lhe case below as
her husband enLlLled Lo exerclse conLrol over
con[ugal asseLs As he ls bound by Lhe
ueclslon of hls own counLrys ourL whlch
valldly exerclsed [urlsdlcLlon over hlm and
whose declslon he does noL repudlaLe he ls
esLopped by hls own represenLaLlon before
sald ourL from asserLlng hls rlghL over Lhe
alleged con[ugal properLy

1o malnLaln LhaL under our laws Allce has Lo
be consldered sLlll marrled Lo 8lchard and sLlll
sub[ecL Lo a wlfes obllgaLlons under ArLlcle
109 of Lhe lvll ode cannoL be [usL Allce
should noL be obllged Lo llve LogeLher wlLh
observe respecL and fldellLy and render
supporL Lo 8lchard 1he laLLer should noL
conLlnue Lo be one of her helrs wlLh posslble
rlghLs Lo con[ugal properLy She should noL be
dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL ln her own counLry lf
Lhe ends of [usLlce are Lo be served




age 8 of 49

VIII

ILAIL vs I8A SCMLkA
Gk 80116

Iacts

eLlLloner lmelda Manalaysay llapll a
llllplno clLlzen and rlvaLe 8espondenL Lrlch
Lkkehard Celllng a Cerman naLlonal were
marrled ln Cermany 1he couple llved
LogeLher for some Llme ln MalaLe Manlla
where Lhelr only chlld lsabella llapll Celllng
was born on Aprll 20 1980

AfLer abouL Lhree and a half years of
marrlage such dlsharmony evenLuaLed ln
prlvaLe respondenL lnlLlaLlng a dlvorce
proceedlng agalnsL peLlLloner ln Cermany
before Lhe Schoneberg Local ourL ln !anuary
1983 Pe clalmed LhaL Lhere was fallure of
Lhelr marrlage and LhaL Lhey had been llvlng
aparL slnce Aprll 1982 eLlLloner on Lhe
oLher hand flled an acLlon for legal
separaLlon supporL and separaLlon of
properLy

Cn !anuary 13 1986 Schoneberg Local ourL
promulgaLed a decree of dlvorce on Lhe
ground of fallure of marrlage of Lhe spouses
Powever on !une 27 1986 or more Lhan flve
monLhs afLer Lhe lssuance of Lhe dlvorce
decree prlvaLe respondenL flled Lwo
complalnLs for adulLery before Lhe lLy llscal
of Manlla alleglng LhaL whlle sLlll marrled Lo
sald respondenL peLlLloner had an affalr wlLh
a cerLaln Wllllam hla as early as 1982 and
wlLh yeL anoLher man named !esus hua
someLlme ln 1983

Issue

WheLher or noL Lhe complalnanL a forelgner
does noL quallfy as an offended spouse havlng
obLalned a flnal dlvorce decree under hls
naLlonal law prlor Lo hls flllng Lhe crlmlnal
complalnL




ne|d

under ArLlcle 344 of Lhe 8evlsed enal ode
Lhe crlme of adulLery as well as four oLher
crlmes agalnsL chasLlLy cannoL be prosecuLed
excepL upon a sworn wrlLLen complalnL flled
by Lhe offeoJeJ spoose

orollary Lo such excluslve granL of power Lo
Lhe offended spouse Lo lnsLlLuLe Lhe acLlon lL
necessarlly follows LhaL such lnlLlaLor musL
have Lhe sLaLus capaclLy or legal
represenLaLlon Lo do so aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
flllng of Lhe crlmlnal acLlon ArLlcle 344 of Lhe
8evlsed enal ode Lhus presupposes LhaL Lhe
marlLal relaLlonshlp ls sLlll subslsLlng aL Lhe
Llme of Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of Lhe crlmlnal acLlon
for adulLery 1hls ls a loglcal consequence
slnce Lhe tolsoo Jette of sald provlslon of law
would be absenL where Lhe supposed
offended parLy had ceased Lo be Lhe spouse
of Lhe alleged offender aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
flllng of Lhe crlmlnal case


1hus prlvaLe respondenL belng no longer Lhe
husband of peLlLloner had no legal sLandlng
Lo commence Lhe adulLery case under Lhe
lmposLure LhaL he was Lhe offended spouse aL
Lhe Llme he flled sulL

Ik

LIM8CNA vs CCMLLLC
Gk# 181097 ] IUNL 2S 2008

Iacts

eLlLloner norlalnle MlLmug Llmbona
(norlalnle) her husband Mohammad C
Llmbona (Mohammad) and respondenL Mallk
8obby 1 Allngan (Mallk) were mayoralLy
candldaLes ln anLar Lanao del norLe for May
2007 naLlonal and Local LlecLlons Mallk flled
a peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon agalnsL
Mohammed on Lhe ground LhaL lL falled Lo
comply wlLh Lhe oneyear resldence rule
CMLLL dlsquallfled Mohammad
onsequenLly norlalnle flled a new cerLlflcaLe
of candldacy as subsLlLuLe candldaLe for
Mohammad

age 9 of 49

Issue

WCn norlalne ls dlsquallfled for runnlng as
mayor on Lhe ground of fallure Lo comply wlLh
oneyear resldence

ku||ng

We noLe Lhe flndlngs of Lhe omelec LhaL
peLlLloners domlclle of orlgln ls Magulng
Lanao del norLe whlch ls also her place of
blrLh and LhaL her domlclle by operaLlon of
law (by vlrLue of marrlage) ls 8apasun
Marawl lLy 1he omelec found LhaL
Mohammad peLlLloners husband effecLed
Lhe change of hls domlclle ln favor of anLar
Lanao del norLe only on november 11 2006
Slnce lL ls presumed LhaL Lhe husband and
wlfe llve LogeLher ln one legal resldence Lhen
lL follows LhaL peLlLloner effecLed Lhe change
of her domlclle also on november 11 2006
ArLlcles 68 and 69 of Lhe lamlly ode provlde
ArL 68 1he husband and wlfe are obllged Lo
llve LogeLher observe muLual love respecL
and fldellLy and render muLual help and
supporL

ArL 69 1he husband and wlfe shall flx Lhe
famlly domlclle ln case of dlsagreemenL Lhe
courL shall declde 1he courL may exempL one
spouse from llvlng wlLh Lhe oLher lf Lhe laLLer
should llve abroad or Lhere are oLher valld
and compelllng reasons for Lhe exempLlon
Powever such exempLlon shall noL apply lf
Lhe same ls noL compaLlble wlLh Lhe solldarlLy
of Lhe famlly onslderlng LhaL peLlLloner
falled Lo show LhaL she malnLalned a separaLe
resldence from her husband and as Lhere ls
no evldence Lo prove oLherwlse rellance on
Lhese provlslons of Lhe lamlly ode ls proper
and ls ln consonance wlLh human experlence

1hus for fallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe resldency
requlremenL peLlLloner ls dlsquallfled Lo run
for Lhe offlce of mayor of anLar Lanao del
norLe Powever peLlLloners dlsquallflcaLlon
would noL resulL ln Mallks proclamaLlon who
came ln second durlng Lhe speclal elecLlon



k

IN 1nL MA11Lk CI 1nL L1I1ICN ICk
nA8LAS CCkUS CI C1LNCIANC ILUSCkIC
LkLINDA k ILUSCkIC pet|t|oner
vs
LkLINDA k ILUSCkIC8ILDNLk SLVIA k
ILUSCkICA ICnN DCLS and IANL DCLS
respondents
Gk No 139789
xx
C1LNCIANC ILUSCkIC MA LkLINDA I
8ILDNLk and SLVIA k ILUSCkIC
pet|t|oners
vs
nCN CCUk1 CI ALALS and LkLINDA k
ILUSCkIC respondents
Gk No 139808

Iacts

Cnce agaln we see Lhe sad Lale of a promlnenL
famlly shaLLered by confllcLs on expecLancy ln
fabled forLune

Cn March 11 1999 Lrllnda k llusorlo Lhe
maLrlarch who was so lovlngly lnseparable
from her husband some years ago flled a
peLlLlon wlLh Lhe ourL of Appeals
1
for bobeos
cotpos Lo have cusLody of her husband ln
consorLlum

Cn Aprll 3 1999 Lhe ourL of Appeals
promulgaLed lLs declslon dlsmlsslng Lhe
peLlLlon for lack of unlawful resLralnL or
deLenLlon of Lhe sub[ecL oLenclano llusorlo

1hus on CcLober 11 1999 Lrllnda k llusorlo
flled wlLh Lhe Supreme ourL an appeal vlo
cerLlorarl pursulng her deslre Lo have cusLody
of her husband oLenclano llusorlo
2
1hls case
was consolldaLed wlLh anoLher case
3
flled by
oLenclano llusorlo and hls chlldren Lrllnda l
8lldner and Sylvla k llusorlo appeallng from
Lhe order glvlng vlslLaLlon rlghLs Lo hls wlfe
asserLlng LhaL he never refused Lo see her

Cn May 12 2000 we dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon
for habeas corpus
4
for lack of merlL and
granLed Lhe peLlLlon
3
Lo nulllfy Lhe ourL of
age 10 of 49

Appeals rullng
6
glvlng vlslLaLlon rlghLs Lo
Lrllnda k llusorlo
7

WhaL ls now before Lhe ourL ls Lrllndas
moLlon Lo reconslder Lhe declslon
8

Cn SepLember 20 2000 we seL Lhe case for
prellmlnary conference on CcLober 11 2000
aL 1000 a m wlLhouL requlrlng Lhe
mandaLory presence of Lhe parLles

Issue(s)

1he ourL lald down Lhe lssues Lo be resolved
Lo wlL
(a) 1o deLermlne Lhe proprleLy of a physlcal
and medlcal examlnaLlon of peLlLloner
oLenclano llusorlo
(b) WheLher Lhe same ls relevanL and
(c) lf relevanL how Lhe ourL wlll conducL Lhe
same
9

ne|d

neverLheless for emphasls we shall dlscuss
Lhe lssues Lhus
ltst Lrllnda k llusorlo clalmed LhaL she was
noL compelllng oLenclano Lo llve wlLh her ln
consorLlum and LhaL oLenclanos menLal
sLaLe was noL an lssue Powever Lhe very rooL
cause of Lhe enLlre peLlLlon ls her deslre Lo
have her husbands costoJy
13
learly Lrllnda
cannoL now deny LhaL she wanLed oLenclano
llusorlo Lo llve wlLh her

5ecooJ Cne reason why Lrllnda k llusorlo
soughL cusLody of her husband was LhaL
respondenLs Lln and Sylvla were lllegally
resLralnlng oLenclano llusorlo Lo fraudulenLly
deprlve her of properLy rlghLs ouL of pure
greed
14
She clalmed LhaL her Lwo chlldren
were uslng Lhelr slck and frall faLher Lo slgn
away oLenclano and Lrllndas properLy Lo
companles conLrolled by Lln and Sylvla She
also argued LhaL slnce oLenclano reLlred as
dlrecLor and offlcer of 8agulo ounLry lub
and hlllpplne Cversees 1elecommunlcaLlons
she would loglcally assume hls poslLlon and
conLrol ?eL Lln and Sylvla were Lhe ones
conLrolllng Lhe corporaLlons
13

1he facL of lllegal resLralnL has noL been
proved durlng Lhe hearlng aL Lhe ourL of
Appeals on March 23 1999
16
oLenclano
hlmself declared LhaL he was noL prevenLed
by hls chlldren from seelng anybody and LhaL
he had no ob[ecLlon Lo seelng hls wlfe and
oLher chlldren whom he loved
Lrllnda hlghllghLed LhaL her husband suffered
from varlous allmenLs 1hus oLenclano
llusorlo dld noL have Lhe menLal capaclLy Lo
declde for hlmself Pence Lrllnda argued LhaL
oLenclano be broughL before Lhe Supreme
ourL so LhaL we could deLermlne hls menLal
sLaLe

We were noL convlnced LhaL oLenclano
llusorlo was menLally lncapaclLaLed Lo choose
wheLher Lo see hls wlfe or noL Agaln Lhls ls a
quesLlon of facL LhaL has been declded ln Lhe
ourL of Appeals
As Lo wheLher Lhe chlldren were ln facL Laklng
conLrol of Lhe corporaLlon Lhese are maLLers
LhaL may be Lhreshed ouL ln a separaLe
proceedlng lrrelevanL ln bobeos cotpos

1bltJ eLlLloner falled Lo sufflclenLly convlnce
Lhe ourL why we should noL rely on Lhe facLs
found by Lhe ourL of Appeals Lrllnda
clalmed LhaL Lhe facLs menLloned ln Lhe
declslon were erroneous and lncompleLe We
see no reason why Lhe Plgh ourL of Lhe land
need go Lo such lengLh 1he hornbook
docLrlne sLaLes LhaL flndlngs of facL of Lhe
lower courLs are concluslve on Lhe Supreme
ourL
17
We emphaslze lL ls noL for Lhe ourL
Lo welgh evldence all over agaln
18
AlLhough
Lhere are excepLlons Lo Lhe rule
19
Lrllnda
falled Lo show LhaL Lhls ls an excepLlonal
lnsLance

oottb Lrllnda sLaLes LhaL ArLlcle xll of Lhe
1987 onsLlLuLlon and ArLlcles 68 and 69 of
Lhe lamlly ode supporL her poslLlon LhaL as
spouses Lhey (oLenclano and Lrllnda) are
duLy bound Lo llve LogeLher and care for each
oLher We agree

1he law provldes LhaL Lhe husband and Lhe
wlfe are obllged Lo llve LogeLher observe
muLual love respecL and fldellLy
20
1he
sancLlon Lherefor ls Lhe sponLaneous muLual
age 11 of 49

affecLlon beLween husband and wlfe and noL
any legal mandaLe or courL order Lo enforce
consorLlum
21

Cbvlously Lhere was absence of empaLhy
beLween spouses Lrllnda and oLenclano
havlng separaLed from bed and board slnce
1972 We deflned empotby as a shared feellng
beLween husband and wlfe experlenced noL
only by havlng sponLaneous sexual lnLlmacy
buL a deep sense of splrlLual communlon
MarlLal unlon ls a Lwoway process

Marrlage ls deflnlLely for Lwo lovlng adulLs
who vlew Lhe relaLlonshlp wlLh omot qlqolt
omotem respecL sacrlflce and a conLlnulng
commlLmenL Lo LogeLherness consclous of lLs
value as a subllme soclal lnsLlLuLlon
22

kI

LkLINDA k ILUSCkIC petitioner vs
LkLINDA I 8ILDNLk and SLVIA k ILUSCkIC
ICnN DCL and IANL DCL respondents
Gk No 139789 May 12 2000

C1LNCIANC ILUSCkIC MA LkLINDA I
8ILDNLk and SLVIA ILUSCkIC petitioners
vs CCUk1 CI ALALS and LkLINDA k
ILUSCkIC respondents
Gk No 139808 May 12 2000

Iacts

1he undlspuLed facLs are as follows

Lrllnda kalaw llusorlo ls Lhe wlfe of lawyer
oLenclano llusorlo

oLenclano llusorlo ls abouL 86 years of age
possessed of exLenslve properLy valued aL
mllllons of pesos lor many years lawyer
oLenclano llusorlo was halrman of Lhe
8oard and resldenL of 8agulo ounLry lub

Cn !uly 11 1942 Lrllnda kalaw and
oLenclano llusorlo conLracLed maLrlmony
and llved LogeLher for a perlod of LhlrLy (30)
years ln 1972 Lhey separaLed from bed and
board for undlsclosed reasons oLenclano
llved aL urdaneLa ondomlnlum Ayala Ave
MakaLl lLy when he was ln Manlla and aL
llusorlo enLhouse 8agulo ounLry lub when
he was ln 8agulo lLy Cn Lhe oLher hand
Lrllnda llved ln AnLlpolo lLy

CuL of Lhelr marrlage Lhe spouses had slx (6)
chlldren namely 8amon llusorlo (age 33)
Lrllnda llusorlo 8lldner (age 32) Maxlmo (age
30) Sylvla (age 49) MarleLLa (age 48) and
Shereen (age 39)
Cn uecember 30 1997 upon oLenclano's
arrlval from Lhe unlLed SLaLes he sLayed wlLh
Lrllnda for abouL flve (3) monLhs ln AnLlpolo
lLy 1he chlldren Sylvla and Lrllnda (Lln)
alleged LhaL durlng Lhls Llme Lhelr moLher
gave oLenclano an overdose of 200 mg
lnsLead of 100 mg ZolofL an anLldepressanL
drug prescrlbed by hls docLor ln new ?ork
uSA As a consequence oLenclano's healLh
deLerloraLed

Cn lebruary 23 1998 Lrllnda flled wlLh Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal ourL AnLlpolo lLy a
peLlLlon10 for guardlanshlp over Lhe person
and properLy of oLenclano llusorlo due Lo
Lhe laLLer's advanced age frall healLh poor
eyeslghL and lmpalred [udgmenL

Cn May 31 1998 afLer aLLendlng a corporaLe
meeLlng ln 8agulo lLy oLenclano llusorlo
dld noL reLurn Lo AnLlpolo lLy and lnsLead
llved aL leveland ondomlnlum MakaLl

Cn March 11 1999 Lrllnda flled wlLh Lhe
ourL of Appeals a peLlLlon for bobeos cotpos
Lo have Lhe cusLody of lawyer oLenclano
llusorlo She alleged LhaL respondenLs11
refused peLlLloner's demands Lo see and vlslL
her husband and prohlblLed oLenclano from
reLurnlng Lo AnLlpolo lLy

Issue(s)

May a wlfe secure a wrlL of bobeos cotpos Lo
compel her husband Lo llve wlLh her ln
con[ugal bllss? 1he answer ls no MarlLal
rlghLs lncludlng coverLure and llvlng ln
con[ugal dwelllng may noL be enforced by Lhe
exLraordlnary wrlL of bobeos cotpos


age 12 of 49

ne|d

As hereLofore sLaLed a wrlL of habeas corpus
exLends Lo all cases of lllegal conflnemenL or
deLenLlon13 or by whlch Lhe rlghLful
cusLody of a person ls wlLhheld from Lhe one
enLlLled LhereLo lL ls avallable where a person
conLlnues Lo be unlawfully denled of one or
more of hls consLlLuLlonal freedoms where
Lhere ls denlal of due process where Lhe
resLralnLs are noL merely lnvolunLary buL are
unnecessary and where a deprlvaLlon of
freedom orlglnally valld has laLer become
arblLrary14 lL ls devlsed as a speedy and
effecLual remedy Lo relleve persons from
unlawful resLralnL as Lhe besL and only
sufflclenL defense of personal freedom

1he essenLlal ob[ecL and purpose of Lhe wrlL
of bobeos cotpos ls Lo lnqulre lnLo all manner
of lnvolunLary resLralnL and Lo relleve a
person Lherefrom lf such resLralnL ls lllegal
1o [usLlfy Lhe granL of Lhe peLlLlon Lhe
resLralnL of llberLy musL be an lllegal and
lnvolunLary deprlvaLlon of freedom of
acLlon17 1he lllegal resLralnL of llberLy musL
be acLual and effecLlve noL merely nomlnal or
moral

1he evldence shows LhaL Lhere was no acLual
and effecLlve deLenLlon or deprlvaLlon of
lawyer oLenclano llusorlo's llberLy LhaL
would [usLlfy Lhe lssuance of Lhe wrlL 1he facL
LhaL lawyer oLenclano llusorlo ls abouL 86
years of age or under medlcaLlon does noL
necessarlly render hlm menLally
lncapaclLaLed Soundness of mlnd does noL
hlnge on age or medlcal condlLlon buL on Lhe
capaclLy of Lhe lndlvldual Lo dlscern hls
acLlons

8elng of sound mlnd he ls Lhus possessed
wlLh Lhe capaclLy Lo make cholces ln Lhls
case Lhe cruclal cholces revolve on hls
resldence and Lhe people he opLs Lo see or
llve wlLh 1he cholces he made may noL
appeal Lo some of hls famlly members buL
Lhese are cholces whlch excluslvely belong Lo
oLenclano Pe made lL clear before Lhe ourL
of Appeals LhaL he was noL prevenLed from
leavlng hls house or seelng people WlLh LhaL
declaraLlon and absenL any Lrue resLralnL on
hls llberLy we have no reason Lo reverse Lhe
flndlngs of Lhe ourL of Appeals

WlLh hls full menLal capaclLy coupled wlLh Lhe
rlghL of cholce oLenclano llusorlo may noL
be Lhe sub[ecL of vlslLaLlon rlghLs agalnsL hls
free cholce CLherwlse we wlll deprlve hlm of
hls rlghL Lo prlvacy needless Lo say Lhls wlll
run agalnsL hls fundamenLal consLlLuLlonal
rlghL

1he ourL of Appeals exceeded lLs auLhorlLy
when lL awarded vlslLaLlon rlghLs ln a peLlLlon
for bobeos cotpos where Lrllnda never even
prayed for such rlghL 1he rullng ls noL
conslsLenL wlLh Lhe flndlng of sub[ecL's sanlLy

When Lhe courL ordered Lhe granL of
vlslLaLlon rlghLs lL also emphaslzed LhaL Lhe
same shall be enforced under penalLy of
conLempL ln case of vlolaLlon or refusal Lo
comply Such asserLlon of raw naked power ls
unnecessary

1he ourL of Appeals mlssed Lhe facL LhaL Lhe
case dld noL lnvolve Lhe rlghL of a parenL Lo
vlslL a mlnor chlld buL Lhe rlghL of a wlfe Lo
vlslL a husband ln case Lhe husband refuses
Lo see hls wlfe for prlvaLe reasons he ls aL
llberLy Lo do so wlLhouL LhreaL of any penalLy
aLLached Lo Lhe exerclse of hls rlghL

no courL ls empowered as a [udlclal auLhorlLy
Lo compel a husband Lo llve wlLh hls wlfe
overLure cannoL be enforced by compulslon
of a wrlL of bobeos cotpos carrled ouL by
sherlffs or by any oLher process 1haL ls a
maLLer beyond [udlclal auLhorlLy and ls besL
lefL Lo Lhe man and woman's free cholce

WnLkLICkL ln C 8 no 139789 Lhe ourL
ulSMlSSLS Lhe peLlLlon for lack of merlL no
cosLs
ln C 8 no 139808 Lhe ourL C8An1S Lhe
peLlLlon and nulllfles Lhe declslon of Lhe ourL
of Appeals lnsofar as lL glves vlslLaLlon rlghLs
Lo respondenL Lrllnda k llusorlo no cosLs



age 13 of 49

kII

kAMCNG CNG vs CA

Iacts

lalnLlff 8among Cng flled a complalnL for Lhe
annulmenL of aucLlon sale of a parcel of land
allegedly owned con[ugally by Lhe plalnLlff
and hls former wlfe 1eodora Cng ln favor of
lranclsco 8olx 1he aucLlon sale was made
due Lo fallure of Lhe wlfe Lo pay her loan
obLalned from lranclsco 8olx who lenL her
money ln relaLlon Lo her own logglng buslness
ln amarlnes Sur

lalnLlff argued LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls
really con[ugal whlch Lhe wlfe ln Lhe case aL
bar could noL legally blnd and conslderlng
LhaL Lhe lndebLedness was conLracLed by Lhe
wlfe only Lhe levy of Lhe sub[ecL properLy noL
owned excluslvely by Lhe wlfe owned [olnLly
wlLh Lhe husband ls lmproper

lalnLlff based hls argumenL on Lhe facL LhaL
Lhe properLy was declared under 1ax no
03378 ln Lhe name of 1eodora 8 Cng whlle
Lhe house erecLed Lhereon was declared
under 1ax no 06022 ln Lhe name of 8amon
Cng and 1eodora 8 Cng (LxhlblLs 8 28
2 4) (ueclslon p 4) lL was Lhe
conLenLlon of Lhe plalnLlff LhaL slnce Lhe
surname Cng (whlch ls Lhe surname of Lhe
husband 8amon Cng) was carrled by
1eodora ln Lhe aforesald declaraLlon LhaL
lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy was
acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage 8y reason
Lhereof Lhe properLy ln dlspuLe ls presumed
Lo be owned [olnLly by boLh spouses

Issue

WCn Lhe properLy ls con[ugal

ne|d

nC lL ls paraphernal

1he mere use of Lhe surname of Lhe husband
ln Lhe Lax declaraLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
ls noL sufflclenL proof LhaL sald properLy was
acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage and ls Lherefore
con[ugal lL ls undlspuLed LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
parcel was declared solely ln Lhe wlfes name
buL Lhe house bullL Lhereon was declared ln
Lhe name of Lhe spouses under such
clrcumsLances coupled wlLh a careful scruLlny
of Lhe records of Lhe presenL case We hold
LhaL Lhe loL ln quesLlon ls paraphernal and ls
Lherefore llable for Lhe personal debLs of Lhe
wlfe

1he presumpLlon LhaL properLy ls con[ugal
(ArL 160 new lvll ode) refers Lo properLy
acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage When Lhere ls
no showlng as Lo when Lhe properLy was
acqulred by a spouse Lhe facL LhaL Lhe LlLle ls
ln Lhe spouses name ls an lndlcaLlon LhaL Lhe
properLy belongs excluslvely Lo sald spouse

As correcLly polnLed ouL by Lhe respondenL
ourL Lhe parLy who lnvokes Lhe presumpLlon
LhaL all properLy of Lhe marrlage belongs Lo
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp (ArL 160 new lvll
ode) musL flrsL prove LhaL Lhe properLy was
acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage roof of
acqulslLlon durlng Lhe marrlage ls a condlLlon
slne qua non for Lhe operaLlon of Lhe
presumpLlon ln favor of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp (obberez eL al vs LanLln eL
al 23 S8A 637 !ose once de Leon vs
8ehablllLaLlon llnance orp 36 S8A 289) ln
Lhe same manner Lhe recenL case of n8 vs
ourL of Appeals 133 S8A 433 afflrms LhaL

When Lhe properLy ls reglsLered ln Lhe name
of Lhe a spouse only and Lhere ls no showlng
as Lo when Lhe properLy was acqulred by sald
spouse Lhls ls an lndlcaLlon LhaL Lhe properLy
belongs excluslvely Lo sald spouse And Lhls
presumpLlon under ArL 160 of Lhe lvll ode
cannoL prevall when Lhe LlLle ls ln Lhe name of
only one spouse and Lhe rlghLs of lnnocenL
Lhlrd parLles are lnvolved
lurLhermore even assumlng for Lhe sake of
argumenL LhaL Lhe properLy ln dlspuLe ls
con[ugal Lhe same may sLlll be held llable for
Lhe debLs of Lhe wlfe ln Lhls case under ArL
117 of Lhe lvll ode Lhe wlfe may engage ln
buslness alLhough Lhe husband may ob[ecL
(buL sub[ecL Lo cerLaln condlLlons) lL ls clear
from Lhe records LhaL Lhe wlfe was engaged ln
age 14 of 49

Lhe logglng buslness wlLh Lhe husbands
knowledge and apparenLly wlLhouL any
ob[ecLlon on hls parL 1he acLs of Lhe husband
show LhaL he gave hls lmplled consenL Lo Lhe
wlfes engagemenL ln buslness Accordlng Lo
!usLlce AmeurflnaPerrera (Lhen AssoclaLe
!usLlce of Lhe ourL of Appeals) ln her
concurrlng oplnlon Lhe rule LhaL should
govern ln LhaL case ls LhaL Lhe wlfes
paraphernal properLles as well as Lhose of
Lhelr con[ugal parLnershlp shall be llable for
Lhe obllgaLlons lncurred by Lhe wlfe ln Lhe
course of her buslness (ArLs 117 140 172
203 and 236 lvll ode ArL 10 ode of
ommerce clLed ln ommenLarles on hll
ommerclal Laws MarLln 1 vol 1 1970
8evlsed LdlLlon pp 1413) AfLer all
whaLever proflLs are earned by Lhe wlfe from
her buslness go Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp lL
would only be [usL and equlLable LhaL Lhe
obllgaLlons conLracLed by Lhe wlfe ln
connecLlon wlLh her buslness may also be
chargeable noL only agalnsL her paraphernal
properLy buL also agalnsL Lhe con[ugal
properLy of Lhe spouses

kIII

GC vs CA
Gk No 114791

IAC1S

rlvaLe respondenLs spouses Permogenes and
!ane Cng were marrled on !une 7 1981 ln
uumagueLe lLy 1he vldeo coverage of Lhe
weddlng was provlded by peLlLloners aL a
conLracL prlce of 163000 1hree Llmes
LhereafLer Lhe newlyweds Lrled Lo clalm Lhe
vldeo Lape of Lhelr weddlng whlch Lhey
planned Lo show Lo Lhelr relaLlves ln Lhe
unlLed SLaLes where Lhey were Lo spend Lhelr
honeymoon and Lhrlce Lhey falled because
Lhe Lape was apparenLly noL yeL processed
When Lhey reLurn however Lhey found ouL
LhaL Lhe Lape had been erased by peLlLloners
and Lherefore could no longer be dellvered

lurlous aL lLs loss prlvaLe respondenLs flled
on SepLember 23 1981 a complalnL for
speclflc performance and damages agalnsL
peLlLloners before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal ourL 7
Lh

!udlclal ulsLrlcL 8ranch 33 uumagueLe lLy
AfLer a proLracLed Lrlal Lhe courL a quo
rendered a declslon declarlng defendanLs Alex
Co and nancy Co [olnLly and severally llable
Lo plalnLlffs Permogenes Cng and !ane
Cng

ulssaLlsfled wlLh Lhe declslon peLlLloners
elevaLed Lhe case Lo Lhe ourL of Appeals
whlch on SepLember 14 1993 dlsmlssed Lhe
appeal and afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courLs
declslonPence Lhls peLlLlon

ISSUL

WCn Lhe husband peLlLloner Alex Co ls
[olnLly and severally llable wlLh hls wlfe nancy
Co regardlng Lhe pecunlary llablllLles lmposed

nLLD

no eLlLloner Alex Co ls absolved from any
llablllLy Lo prlvaLe respondenLs and LhaL
peLlLloner nancy Co ls solely llable Lo sald
prlvaLe respondenLs for Lhe [udgmenL award
under ArLlcle 117 of Lhe lvll ode (now
ArLlcle 73 of Lhe lamlly ode) Lhe wlfe may
exerclse any professlon occupaLlon or engage
ln buslness wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe
husband

ln Lhe lnsLanL case S ls convlnced LhaL lL was
only peLlLloner nancy Co who enLered lnLo
Lhe conLracL wlLh prlvaLe respondenL
onsequenLly S rules LhaL she ls solely llable
Lo prlvaLe respondenLs for Lhe damages
awarded below pursuanL Lo Lhe prlnclple LhaL
conLracLs produce effecL only as beLween Lhe
parLles who execuLe Lhem










age 1S of 49

kCLk1 kLLA1ICNS 8L1WLLN nUNS8AND
AND WIIL

kIV

AGAA VS ALANG

Iacts

Mlguel alang conLracLed hls flrsL marrlage
wlLh arllna (or ornella) on !uly 16 1949 A
few monLhs afLer Lhe weddlng ln CcLober
1949 he lefL for work ln Pawall Mlguel and
arllna's only chlld Permlnla alang was
born on May 12 1930 uurlng hls vlslL ln 1964
Lo Lhe hlllpplnes he sLayed wlLh hls broLher
ln Zambales 1he Lrlal courL found LhaL as
early as 1937 Mlguel had aLLempLed Lo
dlvorce arllna ln Pawall When he reLurned
for good ln 1972 Mlguel refused Lo sLay wlLh
arllna buL sLayed alone ln a house ln
ozorrublo angaslnan Cn !uly 13 1973 63
yr old Mlguel conLracLed a second marrlage
wlLh 19 yr old Lrllnda Agapay 1wo monLhs
earller Mlguel and Lrllnda [olnLly purchased a
parcel of agrlculLural land locaLed aL San
lellpe 8lnalonan angaslnan A house and loL
ln 8lnalonan angaslnan was also purchased
by Lrllnda as sole vendee buL Lhls was
dlsclalmed by Lhe noLary publlc saylng LhaL
Lhe money used Lo buy Lhe properLy was
glven by Mlguel Cn CcLober 1973 Mlguel
and ornella alang execuLed a deed of
donaLlon as a form of compromlse
agreemenL 1he parLles agreed Lo donaLe
Lhelr con[ugal properLy Lo Lhelr only chlld
Permlnla alang Mlguel and Lrllnda had a
son krlsLopher A alang ln 1979 Mlguel and
Lrllnda were convlcLed of concublnage upon
arllna's complalnL 1wo years laLer Mlguel
dled

Cn !uly 11 1979 arllna alang and her
daughLer Permlnla flled an acLlon for recovery
of ownershlp and possesslon of Lhe 8lceland
and house and loL boLh locaLed aL 8lnalonan
angaslnan allegedly purchased by Mlguel
durlng hls cohablLaLlon wlLh Lrllnda Agapay
1he 81 dlsmlssed Lhe case and ruled ln
favour of Agapay Cn appeal Lhe respondenL
courL reversed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon and
declared arllna and Permlnla alang Lhe
owners of Lhe properLles ln quesLlon

Issue

WCn Lhe house and loL ln angaslnan ls a
valld donaLlon by Mlguel Lo Lrllnda

ne|d

WlLh respecL Lo Lhe house and loL Lrllnda
allegedly boughL Lhe same for 2000000 on
SepLember 23 1973 when she was only 22
years old 1he LesLlmony of Lhe noLary publlc
who prepared Lhe deed of conveyance for Lhe
properLy reveals Lhe falsehood of Lhls clalm
ALLy onsLanLlno Sagun LesLlfled LhaL Mlguel
alang provlded Lhe money for Lhe purchase
prlce and dlrecLed LhaL Lrllndas name alone
be placed as Lhe vendee

1he LransacLlon was properly a donaLlon
made by Mlguel Lo Lrllnda buL one whlch was
clearly vold and lnexlsLenL by express
provlslon of law because lL was made
beLween persons gullLy of adulLery or
concublnage aL Lhe Llme of Lhe donaLlon
under ArLlcle 739 of Lhe lvll ode Moreover
ArLlcle 87 of Lhe lamlly ode expressly
provldes LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL
donaLlons beLween spouses now applles Lo
donaLlons beLween persons llvlng LogeLher as
husband and wlfe wlLhouL a valld marrlage
for oLherwlse Lhe condlLlon of Lhose who
lncurred gullL would Lurn ouL Lo be beLLer
Lhan Lhose ln legal unlon

kV

AkCA8A VS 8A1CCALL

kVI

komana Locqu|ao Va|enc|a and Constanc|a
L Va|enc|a pet|t|oners VS
8en|to ALocqu|ao now deceased and
subst|tuted by I|mmy Locqu|ao 1omasa
Mara and the keg|strar of Deeds of
angas|nan respondents
Gk No 122134

age 16 of 49

Iacts

Cn May 22 1944 Permlnlglldo and
8aymunda Locqulao(donor) execuLed a deed
of donaLlon ptoptet ooptlos whlch was
wrlLLen ln Lhe llocooo dlalecL denomlnaLed as
loveototlo 1l 5oqot ln favor of Lhelr son
respondenL 8enlLo Locqulao (hereafLer
respondenL 8enlLo) and hls prospecLlve brlde
respondenL 1omasa Mara 8y Lhe Lerms of Lhe
deed Lhe donees were glfLed wlLh four (4)
parcels of land lncludlng Lhe land ln quesLlon
as well as a male cow and oneLhlrd (
1
/
3
)
porLlon of Lhe con[ugal house of Lhe donor
parenLs ln conslderaLlon of Lhe lmpendlng
marrlage of Lhe donees

8espondenLs donees Look Lhelr marrlage
vows on !une 4 1944 and Lhe facL of Lhelr
marrlage was lnscrlbed aL Lhe back of C1
no 18383 1hey reglsLered Lhe loveototlo 1l
5oqot wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds
on May 13 1970 ln due course Lhe orlglnal
LlLle was cancelled and ln lleu Lhereof 1toosfet
cettlflcote of 1ltle No 84897 was lssued ln Lhe
name of Lhe respondenLs 8enlLo and 1omasa

When Lhe donor dled Lhe 6 helrs lefL
lncludlng 8espondenL 8enlLo execuLed
a ueeJ of lottltloo wltb kecoqoltloo of klqbts
on March 18 1973 whereln Lhey dlsLrlbuLed
among only Lhree (3) of Lhem Lhe Lwelve (12)
parcels of land lefL by Lhelr common
progenlLors excludlng Lhe land ln quesLlon
and oLher loLs dlsposed of by Lhe Locqulao
spouses earller

ulsagreemenLs arose among Lhem eLlLloners
8omana and onsLancla flled a complolo for
Lhe annulmenL of 1toosfet cettlflcote of
1ltle no 84897 agalnsL respondenLs 8enlLo
and 1omasa before Lhe 81 of angaslnan on
uecember 23 1983 eLlLloners alleged LhaL
Lhe lssuance of Lhe Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle
was fraudulenL LhaL Lhe loveototlo 1l 5oqot ls
spurlous LhaL Lhe noLary publlc who noLarlzed
Lhe documenL had no auLhorlLy Lo do so and
LhaL Lhe donaLlon dld noL observe Lhe form
requlred by law as Lhere was no wrlLLen
accepLance on Lhe documenL lLself or ln a
separaLe publlc lnsLrumenL
Issue

WheLher or noL Lhe donaLlon propLer nupLlas
ls valld?

ne|d

?es Lhe donaLlon propLer nupLlas ls valld

unllke ordlnary donaLlons donaLlons ptoptet
ooptlos or donaLlons by reason of marrlage
are Lhose made before lLs celebraLlon ln
conslderaLlon of Lhe same and ln favor of one
or boLh of Lhe fuLure spouses" 1he dlsLlncLlon
ls cruclal because Lhe Lwo classes of donaLlons
are noL governed by exacLly Lhe same rules
especlally as regards Lhe formal essenLlal
requlslLes

under Lhe Cld lvll ode donaLlons ptoptet
ooptlos musL be made ln a publlc
lnsLrumenL ln whlch Lhe properLy donaLed
musL be speclflcally descrlbed Powever
ArLlcle 1330 of Lhe same ode provldes LhaL
fnneptfnne is not nenessfry to the vfidity
ofsunhifts" ln oLher words Lhe celebraLlon
of Lhe marrlage beLween Lhe beneflclary
couple ln Landem wlLh compllance wlLh Lhe
prescrlbed form was enough Lo effecLuaLe
Lhe donaLlon ptoptet ooptlos under Lhe Cld
lvll ode

under Lhe new lvll ode Lhe rules are
dlfferenL ArLlcle 127 Lhereof provldes LhaL
Lhe form of donaLlons ptoptet ooptlos are
regulaLed by Lhe SLaLuLe of lrauds ArLlcle
1403 paragraph 2 whlch conLalns Lhe SLaLuLe
of lrauds requlres LhaL Lhe conLracLs
menLloned Lhereunder need be ln wrlLlng only
Lo be enforceable Powever as provlded ln
ArLlcle 129 express acceptance#is not
nenessfry for the vfidity of these
donftions" 1hus lmplled accepLance ls
sufflclenL

lL ls seLLled LhaL only laws exlsLlng aL Lhe Llme
of Lhe execuLlon of a conLracL are appllcable
LhereLo and noL laLer sLaLuLes unless Lhe
laLLer are speclflcally lnLended Lo have
reLroacLlve effecL onsequenLly lL ls Lhe Cld
lvll ode whlch applles ln Lhls case slnce Lhe
age 17 of 49

donaLlon ptoptet ooptlos was
execuLed ln 1944 and Lhe new lvll ode
Look effecL only on AugusL 30 1930 As a
consequence applylng ArLlcle 1330 of Lhe Cld
lvll ode ln Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe valldlLy
of Lhe quesLloned donaLlon lL does noL
maLLer wheLher or noL Lhe donees had
accepLed Lhe donaLlon 1he valldlLy of Lhe
donaLlon ls unaffecLed ln elLher case

SS1LMS CI A8SCLU1L CCMMUNI1

kVII

SUNGA CnAN vs CA
Gk 164401

Iacts

ln 1977 LamberLo hua and !aclnLo Sunga
formed a parLnershlp ShelllLe Cas Appllance
enLer (ShelllLe) AfLer !aclnLos deaLh ln 1989
hls wldow ecllla Sunga and marrled
daughLer peLlLloner LlllbeLh Sungahan
conLlnued wlLh Lhe buslness wlLhouL huas
consenL huas subsequenL repeaLed
demands for accounLlng and wlndlng up wenL
unheeded prompLlng hlm Lo flle a omplalnL
for JloJloq up of o lottoetsblp Affolts
Accoootloq Apptolsol ooJ kecovety of 5botes
ooJ uomoqes wltb Jtlt of ltellmlooty
Attocbmeot

81 rendered [udgmenL ln favor of hua and
found ecllla and Sungahan solldarlly llable
for any and all clalms of hua 81's [udgmenL
was upheld by Lhe A 1hen Lhe sherlff levled
upon and sold aL publlc aucLlon Sungahan's
properLy ln aco Manlla over whlch a
bulldlng leased Lo n8 sLood Sungahan
quesLlons Lhe levy on execuLlon of Lhe sub[ecL
properLy on Lhe ground LhaL lL ls an absoluLe
communlLy properLy wlLh her husband
norberLo han

Issue

WheLher Lhe absoluLe communlLy of properLy
of spouses LlllbeLh Sunga han and norberLo
han can be lawfully made Lo answer for Lhe
llablllLy of LlllbeLh han under Lhe [udgmenL

ne|d

?es

1he records show LhaL spouses Sungahan
and norberLo were marrled afLer Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe lamlly ode WlLhal Lhelr
absoluLe communlLy properLy may be held
llable for Lhe obllgaLlons conLracLed by elLher
spouse Speclflcally ArL 94 of sald ode
perLlnenLly provldes ArL 94 1he absoluLe
communlLy of properLy shall be llable for x x x
(2) All debLs and obllgaLlons conLracLed durlng
Lhe marrlage by Lhe deslgnaLed admlnlsLraLor
spouse for Lhe beneflL of Lhe communlLy or
by boLh spouses or by one spouse wlLh Lhe
consenL of Lhe oLher (3) uebLs and
obllgaLlons conLracLed by elLher spouse
wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLher Lo Lhe exLenL
LhaL Lhe famlly may have been beneflLed
AbsenL any lndlcaLlon oLherwlse Lhe use and
approprlaLlon by peLlLloner Sungahan of Lhe
asseLs of ShelllLe even afLer Lhe buslness was
dlsconLlnued on May 30 1992 may
reasonably be consldered Lo have been used
for her and her husbands beneflL

CCNIUGAL Ak1NLkSnI CI GAINS
Genera| rov|s|ons

kVIII

kCCCIC VILLANULVA NICCLAS kL1UA
and ACI1A VILLANULVA pet|t|oners
vsCCUk1 CI ALALS and 1nL nLIkS CI
LUSL8IA NAISA kL1UA respondents
Gk No 143286

Iacts

lalnLlff Lusebla naplsa 8eLuya ls Lhe legal
wlfe of defendanL nlcolas 8eLuya havlng
been marrled Lo Lhe laLLer on CcLober 7
1926 CuL of Lhe lawful wedlock Lhey begoL
flve (3) chlldren namely naLlvldad Angela
napoleon Salome and 8oberLa Spouses
8eLuya reslded aL 1lpolo Mandaue lLy
uurlng Lhelr marrlage Lhey acqulred real
properLles and all lmprovemenLs slLuaLed ln
Mandaue lLy and onsolaclon ebu Also
age 18 of 49

defendanL nlcolas 8eLuya ls coowner of a
parcel of land slLuaLed ln Mandaue lLy whlch
he lnherlLed from hls parenLs LsLeban 8eLuya
and 8alblna Solon as well as Lhe purchasers of
heredlLary shares of approxlmaLely elghL (8)
parcels of land ln Mandaue lLy ln 1943
defendanL nlcolas 8eLuya no longer llved wlLh
hls leglLlmaLe famlly and cohablLed wlLh
defendanL aclLa vlllanueva whereln
defendanL rocoplo vlllanueva ls Lhelr
llleglLlmaLe son nlcolas Lhen was Lhe only
person who recelved Lhe lncome of Lhe
abovemenLloned properLles uefendanL
aclLa vlllanueva from Lhe Llme she sLarLed
llvlng ln concublnage wlLh nlcolas has no
occupaLlon she had no properLles of her own
from whlch she could derlve lncome
ln 1983 nlcolas suffered a sLroke and cannoL
Lalk anymore naLlvldad 8eLuya knew of Lhe
physlcal condlLlon of her faLher because Lhey
vlslLed hlm aL Lhe hosplLal lrom Lhe Llme
defendanL nlcolas 8eLuya suffered a sLroke on
!anuary 27 1983 and unLll Lhe presenL lL ls
defendanL rocoplo vlllanueva one of
nlcolas' llleglLlmaLe chlldren who has been
recelvlng Lhe lncome of Lhese properLles
WlLness naLlvldad 8eLuya wenL Lo rocoplo Lo
negoLlaLe because aL Lhls Llme Lhelr faLher
nlcolas was already senlle and has a chlldllke
mlnd She Lold defendanL rocoplo LhaL Lhelr
faLher was already lncapaclLaLed and Lhey had
Lo Lalk Lhlngs over and Lhe laLLer replled LhaL
lL was noL yeL Lhe Llme Lo Lalk abouL Lhe
maLLer

lalnLlff Lhen complalned Lo Lhe 8arangay
apLaln for reconclllaLlon/medlaLlon buL no
seLLlemenL was reached hence Lhe sald
offlclal lssued a cerLlflcaLlon Lo flle acLlon
WrlLLen demands were made by plalnLlff
Lhrough her counsel Lo Lhe defendanLs
lncludlng Lhe llleglLlmaLe famlly asklng for
seLLlemenL buL no seLLlemenL was reached by
Lhe parLles lurLher plalnLlff's wlLness
naLlvldad 8eLuya LesLlfled LhaL Lhe parcel of
land covered by Lax declaraLlon marked
LxhlblL 1 was Lhe properLy boughL by her
faLher from Adrlano Marababol for aL Lhe
Llme of purchase of Lhe properLy defendanL
aclLa vlllanueva had no means of llvellhood

ISSUL

WheLher Lhe sub[ecL properLles are con[ugal

nLLD

eLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLles
are excluslve properLles of nlcolas excepL for
LoL no 132 whlch Lhey clalm ls aclLa's
excluslve properLy 1hls lssue ls easlly
resolved 1he lamlly ode provlslons on
con[ugal parLnershlps govern Lhe properLy
relaLlons beLween nlcolas and Lusebla even lf
Lhey were marrled before Lhe effecLlvlLy of
lamlly ode ArLlcle 103 of Lhe lamlly ode
expllclLly mandaLes LhaL Lhe lamlly ode shall
apply Lo con[ugal parLnershlps esLabllshed
before Lhe lamlly ode wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo
vesLed rlghLs already acqulred under Lhe lvll
ode or oLher laws 1hus under Lhe lamlly
ode lf Lhe properLles are acqulred durlng
Lhe marrlage Lhe presumpLlon ls LhaL Lhey are
con[ugal 1he burden of proof ls on Lhe parLy
clalmlng LhaL Lhey are noL con[ugal 1hls ls
counLerbalanced by Lhe requlremenL LhaL Lhe
properLles musL flrsL be proven Lo have been
acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage before Lhey are
presumed con[ugal eLlLloners argue LhaL
Lusebla falled Lo prove Lhls prerequlslLe We
dlsagree

1he quesLlon of wheLher Lhe sub[ecL
properLles were acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage
of nlcolas and Lusebla ls a facLual lssue 8oLh
Lhe Lrlal and appellaLe courLs agreed LhaL Lhe
sub[ecL properLles were ln facL acqulred
durlng Lhe marrlage of nlcolas and Lusebla
1he Lax declaraLlons coverlng Lhe sub[ecL
properLles along wlLh Lhe unrebuLLed
LesLlmony of Lusebla's wlLnesses esLabllsh
Lhls facL We glve due deference Lo facLual
flndlngs of Lrlal courLs especlally when
afflrmed by Lhe appellaLe courL A reversal of
Lhls flndlng can only occur lf peLlLloners show
sufflclenL reason for us Lo doubL lLs
correcLness eLlLloners ln Lhe presenL case
have noL

Moreover on wheLher LoL no 132 ls con[ugal
or noL Lhe answer came from peLlLloners
Lhemselves nlcolas and Lusebla were marrled
age 19 of 49

on 7 CcLober 1926 nlcolas and aclLa sLarLed
cohablLlng ln 1936 Lusebla dled on 23
november 1996 aclLa and nlcolas were
marrled on 16 uecember 1996 eLlLloners
Lhemselves admlL LhaL LoL no 132 was
purchased on 4 CcLober 1937 1he daLe of
acqulslLlon of LoL no 132 ls clearly durlng Lhe
marrlage of nlcolas and Lusebla

Slnce Lhe sub[ecL properLles lncludlng LoL no
132 were acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage of
nlcolas and Lusebla Lhe presumpLlon under
ArLlcle 116 of Lhe lamlly ode ls LhaL all Lhese
are con[ugal properLles of nlcolas and
Lusebla 1he burden ls on peLlLloners Lo prove
LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLles are noL con[ugal
1he presumpLlon ln ArLlcle 116 whlch subslsLs
unless Lhe conLrary ls proved sLands as an
obsLacle Lo any clalm Lhe peLlLloners may
have 1he burden of provlng LhaL a properLy ls
excluslve properLy of a spouse resLs on Lhe
parLy asserLlng lL and Lhe evldence requlred
musL be clear and convlnclng eLlLloners
falled Lo meeL Lhls sLandard

1he cohablLaLlon of a spouse wlLh anoLher
person even for a long perlod does noL sever
Lhe Lle of a subslsLlng prevlous marrlage
CLherwlse Lhe law would be glvlng a sLamp of
approval Lo an acL LhaL ls boLh lllegal and
lmmoral WhaL peLlLloners fall Lo grasp ls LhaL
nlcolas and aclLa's cohablLaLlon cannoL work
Lo Lhe deLrlmenL of Lusebla Lhe legal spouse
1he marrlage of nlcolas and Lusebla
conLlnued Lo exlsL regardless of Lhe facL LhaL
nlcolas was already llvlng wlLh aclLa Pence
all properLy acqulred from 7 CcLober 1926
Lhe daLe of nlcolas and Lusebla's marrlage
unLll 23 november 1996 Lhe daLe of Lusebla's
deaLh are sLlll presumed con[ugal eLlLloners
have nelLher clalmed nor proved LhaL any of
Lhe sub[ecL properLles was acqulred ouLslde
or beyond Lhls perlod

llnally peLlLloners' rellance on ArLlcle 148 of
Lhe lamlly ode ls mlsplaced A readlng of
ArLlcle 148 readlly shows LhaL Lhere musL be
proof of acLual [olnL conLrlbuLlon by boLh
Lhe llveln parLners before Lhe properLy
becomes coowned by Lhem ln proporLlon Lo
Lhelr conLrlbuLlon 1he presumpLlon of
equallLy of conLrlbuLlon arlses only ln Lhe
absence of proof of Lhelr proporLlonaLe
conLrlbuLlons sub[ecL Lo Lhe condlLlon LhaL
acLual [olnL conLrlbuLlon ls proven flrsL Slmply
puL proof of acLual conLrlbuLlon by boLh
parLles ls requlred oLherwlse Lhere ls no co
ownershlp and no presumpLlon of equal
sharlng eLlLloners falled Lo show proof of
acLual conLrlbuLlon by aclLa ln Lhe acqulslLlon
of LoL no 132 ln shorL peLlLloners falled Lo
prove LhaL aclLa boughL LoL no 132 wlLh her
own money or LhaL she acLually conLrlbuLed
her own money Lo acqulre lL

kIk

De Leon v De Leon
Gk# 18S063

Iacts

Cn !uly 20 1963 8onlfaclo C ue Leon Lhen
slngle and Lhe eople's PomeslLe and
Pouslng orporaLlon (PP) enLered lnLo a
ondlLlonal onLracL Lo Sell for Lhe purchase
on lnsLallmenL of a 19130 squaremeLer loL
slLuaLed ln lalrvlew Cuezon lLy
SubsequenLly on Aprll 24 1968 8onlfaclo
marrled AnlLa de Leon ln a clvll rlLe offlclaLed
by Lhe Munlclpal Mayor of Zaragosa nueva
Lcl[a 1o Lhls unlon were born uanllo and
vllma lollowlng Lhe full paymenL of Lhe cosL
prlce for Lhe loL Lhus purchased PP
execuLed on !une 22 1970 a llnal ueed of
Sale ln favor of 8onlfaclo Accordlngly
1ransfer erLlflcaLe of 1lLle (11) no 173677
was lssued on lebruary 24 1972 ln Lhe name
of 8onlfaclo slngle SubsequenLly
8onlfaclo for h 19000 sold Lhe sub[ecL loL
Lo her slsLer LlLa and husband lellx 8lo
1arrosa (1arrosas) peLlLloners hereln 1he
conveylng ueed of Sale daLed !anuary 12
1974 (ueed of Sale) dld noL bear Lhe wrlLLen
consenL and slgnaLure of AnlLa Cn lebruary
29 1996 8onlfaclo dled 1hree monLhs laLer
Lhe 1arrosas reglsLered Lhe ueed of Sale 1hey
secured Lhe lssuance ln Lhelr names from Lhe
Cuezon lLy 8eglsLer of ueeds AnlLa uanllo
and vllma flled a reconveyance sulL before Lhe
81 ln Cuezon lLy ln Lhelr complalnL AnlLa
and her chlldren alleged among oLher Lhlngs
age 20 of 49

LhaL fraud aLLended Lhe execuLlon of Lhe ueed
of Sale and LhaL subsequenL acLs of 8onlfaclo
would show LhaL he was sLlll Lhe owner of Lhe
parcel of land 1he 1arrosas ln Lhelr Answer
wlLh ompulsory ounLerclalm averred LhaL
Lhe loL 8onlfaclo sold Lo Lhem was hls
excluslve properLy lnasmuch as he was sLlll
slngle when he acqulred lL from PP As
furLher alleged Lhey were noL aware of Lhe
supposed marrlage beLween 8onlfaclo and
AnlLa aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe ueed
of Sale 81 ruled ln favor of AnlLa and her
chlldren A held LhaL Lhe 1arrosas falled Lo
overLhrow Lhe legal presumpLlon LhaL Lhe
parcel of land ln dlspuLe was con[ugal

Issue

WCn Lhe properLy ln quesLlon ls parL of Lhe
con[ugal properLy of 8onlfaclo and AnlLa

ku||ng

ArLlcle 160 of Lhe 1930 lvll ode Lhe
governlng provlslon ln effecL aL Lhe Llme
8onlfaclo and AnlLa conLracLed marrlage
provldes LhaL all properLy of Lhe marrlage ls
presumed Lo belong Lo Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp unless lL ls proved LhaL lL perLalns
excluslvely Lo Lhe husband or Lhe wlfe lor Lhe
presumpLlon Lo arlse lL ls noL as 1an v ourL
of Appeals Leaches even necessary Lo prove
LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred wlLh funds of
Lhe parLnershlp Cnly proof of acqulslLlon
durlng Lhe marrlage ls needed Lo ralse Lhe
presumpLlon LhaL Lhe properLy ls con[ugal ln
facL even when Lhe manner ln whlch Lhe
properLles were acqulred does noL appear
Lhe presumpLlon wlll sLlll apply and Lhe
properLles wlll sLlll be consldered con[ugal

ln Lhe case aL bar ownershlp over whaL was
once a PP loL and covered by Lhe PP
8onlfaclo ondlLlonal onLracL Lo Sell was
only Lransferred durlng Lhe marrlage of
8onlfaclo and AnlLa lL ls well seLLled LhaL a
condlLlonal sale ls akln lf noL equlvalenL Lo a
conLracL Lo sell ln boLh Lypes of conLracL Lhe
efflcacy or obllgaLory force of Lhe vendor's
obllgaLlon Lo Lransfer LlLle ls subordlnaLed Lo
Lhe happenlng of a fuLure and uncerLaln
evenL usually Lhe full paymenL of Lhe
purchase prlce so LhaL lf Lhe suspenslve
condlLlon does noL Lake place Lhe parLles
would sLand as lf Lhe condlLlonal obllgaLlon
had never exlsLed ln oLher words ln a
conLracL Lo sell ownershlp ls reLalned by Lhe
seller and ls noL passed Lo Lhe buyer unLll full
paymenL of Lhe prlce unllke ln a conLracL of
sale where LlLle passes upon dellvery of Lhe
Lhlng sold

lL cannoL be overemphaslzed LhaL Lhe 1930
lvll ode ls very expllclL on Lhe consequence
of Lhe husband allenaLlng or encumberlng any
real properLy of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
wlLhouL Lhe wlfe's consenL 1o a speclflc
polnL Lhe sale of a con[ugal plece of land by
Lhe husband as admlnlsLraLor musL as a rule
be wlLh Lhe wlfe's consenL Llse Lhe sale ls
noL valld So lL ls LhaL ln several cases we ruled
LhaL Lhe sale by Lhe husband of properLy
belonglng Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp wlLhouL
Lhe consenL of Lhe wlfe ls vold ab lnlLlo
absenL any showlng LhaL Lhe laLLer ls
lncapaclLaLed under clvll lnLerdlcLlon or llke
causes 1he nulllLy as we have explalned
proceeds from Lhe facL LhaL sale ls ln
conLravenLlon of Lhe mandaLory requlremenLs
of ArL 166 of Lhe ode Slnce ArL 166 of Lhe
ode requlres Lhe consenL of Lhe wlfe before
Lhe husband may allenaLe or encumber any
real properLy of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp lL
follows LhaL Lhe acLs or LransacLlons execuLed
agalnsL Lhls mandaLory provlslon are vold
excepL when Lhe law lLself auLhorlzed Lhelr
valldlLy

As a flnal conslderaLlon Lhe ourL agrees wlLh
Lhe A LhaL Lhe sale of onehalf of Lhe
con[ugal properLy wlLhouL llquldaLlon of Lhe
parLnershlp ls vold rlor Lo Lhe llquldaLlon of
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp Lhe lnLeresL of each
spouse ln Lhe con[ugal asseLs ls lnchoaLe a
mere expecLancy whlch consLlLuLes nelLher a
legal nor an equlLable esLaLe and does noL
rlpen lnLo a LlLle unLll lL appears LhaL Lhere are
asseLs ln Lhe communlLy as a resulL of Lhe
llquldaLlon and seLLlemenL26 1he lnLeresL of
each spouse ls llmlLed Lo Lhe neL remalnder or
remanenLe llquldo (haber gananclal)
resulLlng from Lhe llquldaLlon of Lhe affalrs of
age 21 of 49

Lhe parLnershlp afLer lLs dlssoluLlon27 1hus
Lhe rlghL of Lhe husband or wlfe Lo onehalf of
Lhe con[ugal asseLs does noL vesL unLll Lhe
dlssoluLlon and llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp or afLer dlssoluLlon of Lhe
marrlage when lL ls flnally deLermlned LhaL
afLer seLLlemenL of con[ugal obllgaLlons Lhere
are neL asseLs lefL whlch can be dlvlded
beLween Lhe spouses or Lhelr respecLlve helrs

kk

nLIkS CI DCMINGC nLkNANDL2 Sk
name|y SLkGIA V nLkNANDL2 (Surv|v|ng
Spouse) DCMINGC V nLkNANDL2 Ik and
MAkIA LLCNCkA WILMA nLkNANDL2
et|t|oners
vs
LAkIDLL MINGCA Sk DCLCkLS
CAMISUkA MLLANIL MINGCA AND UL2CN
CI1 kLGIS1Lk CI DLLDS kespondents
Gk No 146S48

IAC1S

uomlngo Pernandez Sr was awarded a plece
of real properLy ln 1938 by Lhe PP as parL
of Lhe governmenL's houslng program aL Lhe
Llme 1lLle over Lhe sald properLy was lssued
ln 1966 ln Lhe name of Pernandez Sr afLer
full paymenL for Lhe properLy was recelved by
Lhe PP

nelLher peLlLloners nor Pernandez Sr Look
possesslon of Lhe sald properLy Cn Lhe oLher
hand Lhe respondenLs Look possesslon of
Lhe sald properLy ln 1966 and are ln acLual
and physlcal possesslon Lhereof up Lo Lhe
presenL and have made conslderable
lmprovemenLs Lhereon lncludlng a resldenLlal
house where Lhey presenLly reslde

lrom 1966 (Lhe Llme when Lhe respondenLs
were able Lo possess Lhe properLy) Lo 1983
(Lhe Llme when Lhe peLlLloners had
knowledge LhaL Lhe 11 ln Lhe name of
Pernandez Sr had already been cancelled by
Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of Cuezon lLy) covers
almosL a span of 17 years and from 1983 Lo
1993 (Lhe Llme when Lhe Pelrs flled Lhe
orlglnal acLlon) ls a perlod of anoLher 12
years

1he ueed of 1ransfer of 8lghLs execuLed by
Pernandez Sr ln amlsura's favor expressly
sLaLes LhaL Lhe former ln conslderaLlon of Lhe
amounL of 630000 Lransfers hls rlghLs over
Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo Lhe laLLer noLably
such deed was slmulLaneously execuLed wlLh
Lhe SA on lebruary 14 1963

eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe lack of consenL
on Lhe parL of Sergla Pernandez (Lhe spouse)
rendered Lhe SAs and Lhe deed of sale
flcLlLlous hence null and vold ln accordance
wlLh ArLlcle 1409 of Lhe lvll ode

ISSUL

WheLher or noL Lhe consenL of Lhe spouse ls
necessary for Lhe valldlLy of allenaLlon of
con[ugal properLy?

nLLD

no 1he consenL of uomlngo Pernandez Sr Lo
Lhe conLracL ls undlspuLed Lhus Lhe sale of
hls Z share ln Lhe con[ugal properLy was valld
WlLh regard Lo Lhe consenL of hls wlfe Sergla
Pernandez Lo Lhe sale lnvolvlng Lhelr con[ugal
properLy Lhe Lrlal courL found LhaL lL was
lacklng because sald wlfe's slgnaLure on Lhe
SA was falslfled Powever Sergla's lack of
consenL Lo Lhe sale dld noL render Lhe Lransfer
of her share lnvalld

lL bears sLresslng LhaL Lhe sub[ecL maLLer
hereln lnvolves con[ugal properLy Sald
properLy was awarded Lo uomlngo
Pernandez Sr ln 1938 1he assalled SAs
were execuLed ln 1963 and 1964 1lLle ln Lhe
name of uomlngo Pernandez Sr coverlng Lhe
sub[ecL properLy was lssued on May 23 1966
1he sale of Lhe properLy Lo Melanle Mlngoa
and Lhe lssuance of a new LlLle ln her name
happened ln 1978 Slnce all Lhese evenLs
occurred before Lhe lamlly ode Look effecL
ln 1988 Lhe provlslons of Lhe new lvll ode
govern Lhese LransacLlons We quoLe Lhe
appllcable provlslons Lo wlL
age 22 of 49

ArL 163 1he husband ls Lhe admlnlsLraLor of
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
ArL 166 unless Lhe wlfe has been declared a
non compos menLls or a spendLhrlfL or ls
under clvll lnLerdlcLlon or ls conflned ln a
leprosarlum Lhe husband cannoL allenaLe or
encumber any real properLy of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp wlLhouL Lhe wlfe's consenL lf she
refuses unreasonably Lo glve her consenL Lhe
courL may compel her Lo granL Lhe same x x x
ArL 173 1he wlfe may durlng Lhe marrlage
and wlLhln Len years from Lhe LransacLlon
quesLloned ask Lhe courLs for Lhe annulmenL
of any conLracL of Lhe husband enLered lnLo
wlLhouL her consenL when such consenL ls
requlred or any acL or conLracL of Lhe
husband whlch Lends Lo defraud her or lmpalr
her lnLeresL ln Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
properLy Should Lhe wlfe fall Lo exerclse Lhls
rlghL she or her helrs afLer Lhe dlssoluLlon of
Lhe marrlage may demand Lhe value of
properLy fraudulenLly allenaLed by Lhe
husband

ln 5ps AlfteJo v 5ps 8ottos
41
we held LhaL
1he lamlly ode whlch Look effecL on 3
AugusL 1988 provldes LhaL any allenaLlon or
encumbrance made by Lhe husband of Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp properLy wlLhouL Lhe
consenL of Lhe wlfe ls vold Powever when
Lhe sale ls made before Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe
lamlly ode Lhe appllcable law ls Lhe lvll
ode

ArLlcle 173 of Lhe lvll ode provldes LhaL Lhe
dlsposlLlon of con[ugal properLy wlLhouL Lhe
wlfes consenL ls noL vold buL merely voldable

1hus Lhe fallure of Sergla Pernandez Lo flle
wlLh Lhe courLs an acLlon for annulmenL of Lhe
conLracL durlng Lhe marrlage and wlLhln Len
(10) years from Lhe LransacLlon necessarlly
barred her from quesLlonlng Lhe sale of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy Lo Lhlrd persons







kkI

nILIS MA11nLWS vs 8LNIAMIN and
ICSLLN 1ALCk
Gk 164S84

Iacts

Cn !une 30 1988 respondenL 8en[amln A
1aylor (8en[amln) a 8rlLlsh sub[ecL marrled
!oselyn 1aylor (!oselyn) a 17year old
llllplna Cn !une 9 1989 whlle Lhelr marrlage
was subslsLlng !oselyn boughL from ulosa M
MarLln a 1294 squaremeLer loL (8oracay
properLy) slLuaLed aL ManocManoc 8oracay
lsland Malay Aklan for and ln conslderaLlon
of 12900000 1he sale was allegedly
flnanced by 8en[amln !oselyn and 8en[amln
also uslng Lhe laLLer's funds consLrucLed
lmprovemenLs Lhereon and evenLually
converLed Lhe properLy Lo a vacaLlon and
LourlsL resorL known as Lhe Admlral 8en 8ow
lnn All requlred permlLs and llcenses for Lhe
operaLlon of Lhe resorL were obLalned ln Lhe
name of Clnna elesLlno !oselyn's slsLer

Powever 8en[amln and !oselyn had a falllng
ouL and !oselyn ran away wlLh klm
hlllppsen Cn !une 8 1992 !oselyn execuLed
a Speclal ower of ALLorney (SA) ln favor of
8en[amln auLhorlzlng Lhe laLLer Lo malnLaln
sell lease and sublease and oLherwlse enLer
lnLo conLracL wlLh Lhlrd parLles wlLh respecL Lo
Lhelr 8oracay properLy

Cn !uly 20 1992 !oselyn as lessor and
peLlLloner hlllp MaLLhews as lessee enLered
lnLo an AgreemenL of Lease (AgreemenL)
lnvolvlng Lhe 8oracay properLy for a perlod of
23 years wlLh an annual renLal of
1200000 1he agreemenL was slgned by
Lhe parLles and execuLed before a noLary
ubllc eLlLloner LhereafLer Look possesslon
of Lhe properLy and renamed Lhe resorL as
Muslc Carden 8esorL

lssue(s)

O 1he marlLal consenL of respondenL
ben[amln Laylor ls noL requlred ln Lhe
agreemenL of lease daLed 20 [uly
age 23 of 49

1992 CranLlng otqoeoJo LhaL hls
consenL ls requlred ben[amln Laylor ls
deemed Lo have glven hls consenL
when he afflxed hls slgnaLure ln Lhe
agreemenL of lease as wlLness ln Lhe
llghL of Lhe rullng of Lhe supreme
courL ln Lhe case of spouses pelayo vs
Melkl perez gr no 141323 [une 8
2003

O 1he parcel of land sub[ecL of Lhe
agreemenL of lease ls Lhe excluslve
properLy of [ocelyn c 1aylor a flllplno
clLlzen ln Lhe llghL of cheesman vs
lac gr no 74833 [anuary 21 1991

O 1he courLs o poo erroneously applled
arLlcle 96 of Lhe famlly code of Lhe
phlllpplnes whlch ls a provlslon
referrlng Lo Lhe absoluLe communlLy
of properLy 1he properLy reglme
governlng Lhe properLy relaLlons of
ben[amln Laylor and [oselyn Laylor ls
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of galns
because Lhey were marrled on 30
[une 1988 whlch ls prlor Lo Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe famlly code ArLlcle
96 of Lhe famlly code of Lhe
phlllpplnes flnds no appllcaLlon ln Lhls
case

O 1he honorable courL of appeals
lgnored Lhe presumpLlon of regularlLy
ln Lhe execuLlon of noLarlal
documenLs


O 1he honorable courL of appeals falled
Lo pass upon Lhe counLerclalm of
peLlLloner desplLe Lhe facL LhaL lL was
noL conLesLed and desplLe Lhe
presenLaLlon of evldence esLabllshlng
sald clalm

ne|d

We flnd and so hold LhaL 8en[amln has no
rlghL Lo nulllfy Lhe AgreemenL of Lease
beLween !oselyn and peLlLloner 8en[amln
belng an allen ls absoluLely prohlblLed from
acqulrlng prlvaLe and publlc lands ln Lhe
hlllpplnes onslderlng LhaL !oselyn
appeared Lo be Lhe deslgnaLed vendee" ln
Lhe ueed of Sale of sald properLy she
acqulred sole ownershlp LhereLo 1hls ls Lrue
even lf we susLaln 8en[amln's clalm LhaL he
provlded Lhe funds for such acqulslLlon 8y
enLerlng lnLo such conLracL knowlng LhaL lL
was lllegal no lmplled LrusL was creaLed ln hls
favor no relmbursemenL for hls expenses can
be allowed and no declaraLlon can be made
LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy was parL of Lhe
con[ugal/communlLy properLy of Lhe
spouses ln any evenL he had and has no
capaclLy or personallLy Lo quesLlon Lhe
subsequenL lease of Lhe 8oracay properLy by
hls wlfe on Lhe Lheory LhaL ln so dolng he was
merely exerclslng Lhe prerogaLlve of a
husband ln respecL of con[ugal properLy 1o
susLaln such a Lheory would counLenance
lndlrecL conLroverslon of Lhe consLlLuLlonal
prohlblLlon lf Lhe properLy were Lo be
declared con[ugal Lhls would accord Lhe allen
husband a subsLanLlal lnLeresL and rlghL over
Lhe land as he would Lhen have a declslve
voLe as Lo lLs Lransfer or dlsposlLlon 1hls ls a
rlghL LhaL Lhe onsLlLuLlon does noL permlL
hlm Lo have

lalmlng LhaL Lhe AgreemenL was null and
vold slnce lL was enLered lnLo by !oselyn
wlLhouL hls (8en[amln's) consenL 8en[amln
lnsLlLuLed an acLlon for ueclaraLlon of nulllLy
of AgreemenL of Lease wlLh uamages agalnsL
!oselyn and Lhe peLlLloner 8en[amln clalmed
LhaL hls funds were used ln Lhe acqulslLlon
and lmprovemenL of Lhe 8oracay properLy
and coupled wlLh Lhe facL LhaL he was
!oselyn's husband any LransacLlon lnvolvlng
sald properLy requlred hls consenL

ln flne Lhe AgreemenL of Lease enLered lnLo
beLween !oselyn and peLlLloner cannoL be
nulllfled on Lhe grounds advanced by
8en[amln 1hus we uphold lLs valldlLy

WlLh Lhe foregolng dlsqulslLlon we flnd lL
unnecessary Lo address Lhe oLher lssues
ralsed by Lhe peLlLloner



age 24 of 49

kkII

CAMILC I 8CkkCMLC et|t|oner
vs
AN1CNIL11A C DLSCALLAk kespondent
Gk 1S9310

Iacts

Wllhelm !ambrlch an AusLrlan was asslgned
by hls employer Lo work here ln Lhe
hlllpplnes where he meL respondenL
AnLonleLLa uescallar a separaLed moLher of
Lwo boys wlLh whom he had a llveln
relaLlonshlp wlLh uurlng Lhe course of Lhelr
relaLlonshlp a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale was
lssued ln Lhelr favor by AgroMacro
Subdlvlslon respecLlng a house and loL where
Lhey Lransferred and llved LogeLher When Lhe
deed was presenLed before Lhe 8eglsLry of
ueeds for reglsLraLlon a 1ransfer erLlflcaLe
of 1lLle was lssued only ln Lhe name of
respondenL and Lhe reglsLraLlon was refused
on Lhe parL of !ambrlch on Lhe ground LhaL he
was an allen and could noL acqulre allenable
lands of Lhe publlc domaln onsequenLly
!ambrlch's name was erased from Lhe deed of
sale ln Lhe meanLlme !ambrlch adopLed Lhe
sons of respondenL Powever noL long afLer
Lhe couple broke up and llved separaLely
wlLhouL seLLlemenL of Lhelr properLles Whlle
sLlll ln Lhe hlllpplnes !ambrlch meL
peLlLloner amllo 8orromeo wlLh whom he
was lndebLed ln Lhe amounL of 130000
relaLlve Lo Lhe purchases he made from Lhe
laLLer whlch he was noL able Lo pay 8ellevlng
LhaL hls lnLeresL ln hls properLy wlLh Lhe Agro
Macro Subdlvlslon sLlll exlsL he sold Lhe same
by way of ueed of AbsoluLe Sale/AsslgnmenL
Lo peLlLloner When peLlLloner was abouL Lo
reglsLer Lhe deed he dlscovered however
LhaL Lhe properLy was already Lransferred ln
Lhe name of respondenL and had already
been morLgaged eLlLloner Lhen flled a
complalnL for recovery of Lhe real properLy
eLlLloner alleged LhaL Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe
Sale over Lhe properLles whlch ldenLlfled boLh
!ambrlch and respondenL as buyers do noL
reflecL Lhe Lrue agreemenL of Lhe parLles slnce
respondenL dld noL pay a slngle cenLavo of
Lhe purchase prlce and was noL ln facL a
buyer LhaL lL was !ambrlch alone who pald for
Lhe properLles uslng hls excluslve funds LhaL
!ambrlch was Lhe real and absoluLe owner of
Lhe properLles and LhaL peLlLloner acqulred
absoluLe ownershlp by vlrLue of Lhe ueed of
AbsoluLe Sale/AsslgnmenL whlch !ambrlch
execuLed ln hls favor

ln her Answer respondenL belled Lhe
allegaLlon LhaL she dld noL pay a slngle
cenLavo of Lhe purchase prlce Cn Lhe
conLrary she clalmed LhaL she solely and
excluslvely used her own personal funds Lo
defray and pay for Lhe purchase prlce of Lhe
sub[ecL loLs ln quesLlon and LhaL !ambrlch
belng an allen was prohlblLed Lo acqulre or
own real properLy ln Lhe hlllpplnes
1he 81 rendered a declslon ln favor of
peLlLloner 1he declslon was however
reversed by A on appeal

ISSUL

WCn Lhe peLlLloner as Lhe successorln
lnLeresL of !ambrlch who ls a resldenL allen
has valldly obLalned Lhe rlghL over Lhe sub[ecL
properLy wlLhouL vlolaLlng Lhe prohlblLlon
under Lhe onsLlLuLlon

nLLD

?LS

As Lhe rule now sLands Lhe fundamenLal law
expllclLly prohlblLs nonllllplnos from
acqulrlng or holdlng LlLle Lo prlvaLe lands
excepL only by way of legal successlon or lf
Lhe acqulslLlon was made by a former naLural
born clLlzen29

1herefore ln Lhe lnsLanL case Lhe Lransfer of
land from AgroMacro uevelopmenL
orporaLlon Lo !ambrlch who ls an AusLrlan
would have been declared lnvalld lf
challenged had noL !ambrlch conveyed Lhe
properLles Lo peLlLloner who ls a llllplno
clLlzen ln unlLed hurch 8oard for World
MlnlsLrles v SebasLlan30 Lhe ourL relLeraLed
Lhe conslsLenL rullng ln a number of cases31
LhaL lf land ls lnvalldly Lransferred Lo an allen
who subsequenLly becomes a llllplno clLlzen
age 2S of 49

or Lransfers lL Lo a llllplno Lhe flaw ln Lhe
orlglnal LransacLlon ls consldered cured and
Lhe LlLle of Lhe Lransferee ls rendered valld
Applylng unlLed hurch 8oard for World
MlnlsLrles Lhe Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of
peLlLloner vlz

Whlle Lhe acqulslLlon and Lhe purchase of
(slc) Wllhelm !ambrlch of Lhe properLles
under llLlgaLlon were vold ab lnlLlo slnce
Lhey were conLrary Lo Lhe onsLlLuLlon of
Lhe hlllpplnes he belng a forelgner yeL Lhe
acqulslLlon of Lhese properLles by plalnLlff
who ls a llllplno clLlzen from hlm has cured
Lhe flaw ln Lhe orlglnal LransacLlon and Lhe
LlLle of Lhe Lransferee ls valld

1he raLlonale behlnd Lhe ourL's rullng ln
unlLed hurch 8oard for World MlnlsLrles as
relLeraLed ln subsequenL cases32 ls Lhls
slnce Lhe ban on allens ls lnLended Lo preserve
Lhe naLlon's land for fuLure generaLlons of
llllplnos LhaL alm ls achleved by maklng
lawful Lhe acqulslLlon of real esLaLe by allens
who became llllplno clLlzens by naLurallzaLlon
or Lhose Lransfers made by allens Lo llllplno
clLlzens As Lhe properLy ln dlspuLe ls already
ln Lhe hands of a quallfled person a llllplno
clLlzen Lhere would be no more publlc pollcy
Lo be proLecLed 1he ob[ecLlve of Lhe
consLlLuLlonal provlslon Lo keep our lands ln
llllplno hands has been achleved

Lxc|us|ve roperty of Lach Spouse
kkIII

VILLLGAS vs LINGAN
Gk 1S3839

IAC1S

lsaac vlllegas was Lhe reglsLered owner of a
parcel of land ln 1uguegarao agayan ln
order Lo secure Lhe paymenL of a loan from
Lhe uevelopmenL 8ank of Lhe hlllpplnes
(u8) lsaac consLlLuLed a real esLaLe
morLgage over Lhe sald parcel of land ln favor
of u8 1he sald loan and morLgage was
subsequenLly Lransferred by Lhe u8 Lo Lhe
Pome MuLual uevelopmenL lund
(PMul)When Lhe lsaac falled Lo seLLle hls
loan Lhe real esLaLe morLgage he consLlLuLed
over Lhe properLy was foreclosed Lhe
properLy was sold aL publlc aucLlon and as
Lhe PMul was lLself Lhe hlghesL bldder aL
such publlc aucLlon a cerLlflcaLe of sherlffs
sale was lssued and LhereafLer reglsLered
wlLh Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds on March 8 1996

8y vlrLue of a power of aLLorney execuLed by
vlllegas 'wlfe Marllou vlllegas ln favor of
Clorla 8oa aLral Lhe laLLer redeemed Lhe
properLy from Lhe PMul

Cn May 17 1996 Clorla 8 aLral (aLral) by
vlrLue of Lhe same power of aLLorney
execuLed a ueed of Sale ln favor of
respondenL

lsaac clalms LhaL Lhe power of aLLorney
execuLed ln favor of aLral hls moLherlnlaw
creaLed a prlnclpalagenL relaLlonshlp only
beLween hls wlfe Marllou aLralvlllegas
(Marllou) as prlnclpal and aLral as agenL
and Lhen only for Lhe laLLer Lo admlnlsLer Lhe
properLles of Lhe former LhaL he never
auLhorlzed aLral Lo admlnlsLer hls properLles
parLlcularly hereln sub[ecL properLy and LhaL
aLral had no auLhorlLy Lo execuLe Lhe ueed
of AbsoluLe Sale ln favor of Lhe respondenL
slnce from Lhe very wordlngs of Lhe power of
aLLorney she had no speclal auLhorlLy Lo sell
or convey any speclflc real properLy

Cn uecember 19 1996 Lhe 81 dlsmlssed Lhe
omplalnL and on appeal A afflrmed lo toto
Lhe 81 !udgmenL Pence Lhls peLlLlon for
revlew

ISSULS

(1) WCn Lhe wlfe of Lhe peLlLloner lsaac
as successorlnlnLeresL may valldly
redeem Lhe properLy ln quesLlon
(2) WCn Lhe peLlLloner husband lsaac
has a cause of acLlon agalnsL hls
respondenL wlfe Marllou
nLLD

1 ?LS
SecLlon 6 of AcL no 3133 provldes LhaL lo oll
coses lo wblcb oo exttojoJlclol sole ls moJe
age 26 of 49

ooJet tbe speclol powet betelobefote tefetteJ
to tbe Jebtot bls soccessotslolotetest ot
ooy joJlclol cteJltot ot joJqmeot cteJltot of
solJ Jebtot ot ooy petsoo bovloq o lleo oo tbe
ptopetty sobsepoeot to tbe mottqoqe ot JeeJ
of ttost ooJet wblcb tbe ptopetty ls solJ moy
teJeem tbe some ot ooy tlme wltblo tbe tetm
of ooe yeot ftom ooJ oftet tbe Jote of sole
ooJ socb teJemptloo sboll be qovetoeJ by tbe
ptovlsloos of sectloo 464 to 466 locloslve of
tbe coJe of clvll ltoceJote lo so fot os tbese
ote oot locooslsteot wltb tbe ptovlsloos of tbls
Act

SecLlon 27 8ule 39 of Lhe 1997 8ules of lvll
rocedure provldes LhaL teol ptopetty solJ os
ptovlJeJ lo tbe lost pteceJloq sectloo ot ooy
pott tbeteof solJ sepototely moy be
teJeemeJ lo tbe moooet betelooftet ptovlJeJ
by tbe followloq petsoos xxxx o)1be joJqmeot
obllqot ot bls soccessotlolotetest lo tbe
wbole ot ooy pott of tbe ptopetty

1he successorlnlnLeresL of Lhe [udgmenL
debLor referred Lo ln Lhe above provlslon
lncludes a person who succeeds Lo hls
properLy by operaLlon of law or a person wlLh
a [olnL lnLeresL ln Lhe properLy or hls spouse
or helrs

under Lhe above provlslon peLlLloner could
have redeemed Lhe properLy from Marllou
afLer she had redeemed lL 1he pleadlngs flled
and Lhe records of Lhls case do noL show LhaL
peLlLloner exerclsed sald rlghL onsequenLly
as correcLly held by Lhe A Marllou acqulred
ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL properLy All rlghLs
and LlLle of Lhe [udgmenL obllgor are
Lransferred upon Lhe explraLlon of Lhe rlghL of
redempLlon And where Lhe redempLlon ls
made under a properLy reglme governed by
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of galns ArLlcle 109
of Lhe lamlly ode provldes LhaL properLy
acqulred by rlghL of redempLlon ls Lhe
excluslve properLy of Lhe spouses redeemlng
Lhe properLy

2 nC
A cause of acLlon ls an acL or omlsslon of Lhe
defendanL ln vlolaLlon of Lhe legal rlghL of Lhe
plalnLlff
A complalnL sLaLes a cause of acLlon when lL
conLalns Lhree essenLlal elemenLs(1) a rlghL ln
favor of Lhe plalnLlff by whaLever means and
under whaLever law lL arlses (2) an obllgaLlon
of Lhe defendanL Lo respecL such rlghL and (3)
Lhe acL or omlsslon of Lhe defendanL vlolaLes
Lhe rlghL of Lhe plalnLlff

ln Lhe presenL case Lhere ls no properLy rlghL
LhaL exlsLs ln favor of Lhe peLlLloner and wlLh
more reason no such obllgaLlon arlses ln
behalf of Lhe defendanL hereln respondenL
Lo respecL such rlghL1here was no vlolaLlon of
a legal rlghL of Lhe peLlLloner

lL musL be sLressed LhaL Lhere ls no allegaLlon
or proof LhaL Marllou redeemed Lhe properLy
ln behalf of Lhe peLlLloner Marllou dld noL acL
as agenL of Lhe peLlLloner 8aLher she
exerclsed Lhe rlghL of redempLlon ln her own
rlghL as successorlnlnLeresL of Lhe peLlLloner
under Lhe clrcumsLances should Lhere be any
rlghL vlolaLed Lhe aggrleved parLy ls Marllou
peLlLloners wlfe 1he properLy ln quesLlon was
Lhe excluslve properLy of Marllou by vlrLue of
her redempLlon 1hus peLlLloner has no valld
cause of acLlon agalnsL Lhe respondenL

ulvesLed of all lnLeresL over Lhe properLy Lhe
peLlLloner has ceased Lo be Lhe proper parLy
who may challenge Lhe valldlLy of Lhe sale
Moreover slnce as a rule Lhe agency as a
conLracL ls blndlng only beLween Lhe
conLracLlng parLles Lhen only Lhe parLles as
well as Lhe Lhlrd person who LransacLs wlLh
Lhe parLles Lhemselves may quesLlon Lhe
valldlLy of Lhe agency or Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe
Lerms and condlLlons found Lhereln 1hls rule
ls a corollary of Lhe foregolng docLrlne on Lhe
rlghLs of real parLles ln lnLeresL xxxxx eLlLlon
ls denled

CCNIUGAL Ak1NLkSnI kCLk1
kkIV

ISULA vs nLIkS CI L1kA UNA1ING
Gk 132803
Iacts

Salvador upod and uolores 8auLlsLa are Lhe
helrs of eLra unaLlng and Aqulllno vlllar
age 27 of 49

1hey clalmed LhaL Lhe land ln dlspuLe known
as LoL 1201 was reglsLered ln Lhe name of
eLra unaLlng marrled Lo Aqulllno vlllar
Powever someLlme ln 1930 afLer Lhe deaLh
of eLra unaLlng Aqulllno vlllar enLered lnLo
an oral parLnershlp agreemenL for Len years
wlLh AgusLln navarra lnvolvlng Lhe swampy
porLlon of Lhe loL ln quesLlon conslsLlng of
around four hecLares whlch was converLed
lnLo a flshpond wlLh Lhe lnvesLmenL caplLal of
AgusLln navarra and Lhe neL lncome shall be
dlvlded equally beLween Aqulllno vlllar and
hls chlldren lellx vlllar and aLallna vlllar on
one hand and AgusLln navarra on Lhe oLher
hand

ln 1938 when AgusLln navarra dled Lhe helrs
of eLra unaLlng repossessed Lhe land ln
quesLlon unLll Lhe defendanL !essle lsuena
sonlnlaw of AgusLln navarra dlsLurbed Lhelr
possesslon someLlme ln 1974 And flnally
someLlme ln 1982 Lhe defendanL wlLh Lhe
company of several men lncludlng pollcemen
forclbly Look physlcal possesslon of Lhe sald
land from Lhe helrs of eLra unaLlng 1hus
Lhey flled Lhe lnsLanL acLlon for recovery of
possesslon and ownershlp of a parcel of land
agalnsL !essle lsuena

Cn Lhe oLher hand defendanL counLered LhaL
Lhe whole land ln dlspuLe was sold by lellx
vlllar and aLallna vlllar Lo AgusLln navarra as
evldenced by LscrlLura de venLa AbsoluLa
And he and hls wlfe purchased Lhe sald land
from Lhe helrs of AgusLln navarra

AfLer Lrlal Lhe courL a quo ruled LhaL slnce Lhe
dlspuLed loL was Lhe con[ugal properLy of
Spouses eLra unaLlng and Aqulllno vlllar lLs
purporLed sale by lellx and aLallna vlllar Lo
AgusLln navarra could be consldered as valld
Powever Lhls valldlLy perLalned only Lo Lhe
share of Lhe laLe eLra unaLlng conslderlng
LhaL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe sale Aqulllno vlllar was
sLlll allve 1he ourL of Appeals afflrmed ln
LoLo Lhe sald declslon





Issue

W/n Lhe loL ln dlspuLe ls paraphernal
properLy of eLra unaLlng hence would be
covered by Lhe C

ne|d

1he ourL ruled LhaL Lhe loL ln dlspuLe can
properly be consldered as a paraphernal
properLy of eLra unaLlng oncededly
properLles acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage are
presumed Lo be con[ugal Powever Lhls prlma
facle presumpLlon cannoL prevall over Lhe
cadasLral courL's speclflc flndlng reached ln
adversarlal proceedlngs LhaL Lhe loL was
lnherlLed by eLra unaLlng from her moLher

onsequenLly by vlrLue of Lhe ueed of Sale
Lhey execuLed lellx and aLallna effecLlvely
Lransferred Lo AgusLln navarra on lebruary 4
1949 Lhelr LlLle over Lhelr LwoLhlrds share ln
Lhe dlspuLed loL Powever Lhey could noL
have dlsposed of Lhelr faLher's share ln Lhe
same properLy aL Lhe Llme as Lhey were noL
yeL owners AL Lhe mosL belng Lhe only
chlldren Lhey had an lnchoaLe lnLeresL ln Lhelr
faLher's share When Aqulllno vlllar dled ln
1933 wlLhouL dlsposlng of hls oneLhlrd share
ln Lhe dlspuLed properLy lellx and aLallna's
lnchoaLe lnLeresL ln lL was acLuallzed because
successlon vesLed ln Lhem Lhe LlLle Lo Lhelr
faLher's share and consequenLly Lo Lhe enLlre
loL 1hus LhaL LlLle passed Lo AgusLln navarra
pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 1434 of Lhe presenL lvll
ode whlch was already ln force aL Lhe Llme
of Aqulllno's deaLh ln 1933

kkV

CnING vs CA
Gk 124642









age 28 of 49

kkVI

Ierrer vs Ierrer
Gk No 166496

Iacts

eLlLloner ld Lhe wldow of Alfredo lerrer a
half broLher of 8espondenLs She flled a
omplalnL for paymenL of con[ugal
lmprovemenLs sum of money and
accounLlng wlLh prayer for ln[uncLlon and
damages She alleged LhaL before her
marrlage Lo Alfredo Lhe laLLer acqulred a
plece of loL covered by 1ransfer erLlflcaLe of
1lLle (11) no 67927 Pe applled for a loan
wlLh Lhe SSS Lo bulld lmprovemenLs Lhereon
lncludlng a resldenLlal house and a Lwodoor
aparLmenL bulldlng Powever lL was durlng
Lhelr marrlage LhaL paymenL of Lhe loan was
made uslng Lhe couple's con[ugal funds lrom
Lhelr con[ugal funds peLlLloner poslLed Lhey
consLrucLed a warehouse on Lhe
loL Moreover peLlLloner averred LhaL
respondenL Manuel occupled one door of Lhe
aparLmenL bulldlng as well as Lhe warehouse
however ln SepLember 1991 he sLopped
paylng renLals Lhereon alleglng LhaL he had
acqulred ownershlp over Lhe properLy by
vlrLue of a ueed of Sale execuLed by
Alfredo ln favor of respondenLs Manuel and
lsmael and Lhelr spouses 11 no 67927 was
cancelled and 11 no 2728 was lssued and
reglsLered ln Lhe names of respondenLs

Accordlng Lo peLlLloner LhaL when Alfredo
dled on 29 SepLember 1999 or aL Lhe Llme of
Lhe llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
she had Lhe rlghL Lo be relmbursed for Lhe
cosL of Lhe lmprovemenLs on Alfredo's
loL She alleged LhaL Lhe cosL of Lhe
lmprovemenLs amounLed Lo 30000000
hence onehalf Lhereof should be relmbursed
and pald by respondenLs as Lhey are now Lhe
reglsLered owners of Alfredo's loL

Issue

WheLher or noL eLlLloner has Lhe rlghL Lo be
relmbursed for Lhe cosL of lmprovemenLs
under ArLlcle 120 of Lhe lamlly ode?
ne|d

no eLlLloner was noL able Lo show LhaL
Lhere ls an obllgaLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe
respondenLs Lo respecL or noL Lo vlolaLe her
rlghL 1he rlghL of Lhe spouse as
conLemplaLed ln ArLlcle 120 of Lhe lamlly
ode Lo be relmbursed for Lhe cosL of Lhe
lmprovemenLs Lhe obllgaLlon Lo relmburse
resLs on Lhe spouse upon whom ownershlp of
Lhe enLlre properLy ls vesLed 1here ls no
obllgaLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe purchaser of Lhe
properLy ln case Lhe properLy ls sold by Lhe
ownerspouse

lndeed ArLlcle 120 provldes Lhe soluLlon ln
deLermlnlng Lhe ownershlp of Lhe
lmprovemenLs LhaL are made on Lhe separaLe
properLy of Lhe spouses aL Lhe expense of Lhe
parLnershlp or Lhrough Lhe acLs or efforLs of
elLher or boLh spouses 1hus when Lhe cosL
of Lhe lmprovemenL and any resulLlng
lncrease ln value are more Lhan Lhe value of
Lhe properLy aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lmprovemenL
Lhe enLlre properLy of one of Lhe spouses shall
belong Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp sub[ecL Lo
relmbursemenL of Lhe value of Lhe properLy of
Lhe ownerspouse aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
lmprovemenL oLherwlse sald properLy shall
be reLalned ln ownershlp by Lhe owner
spouse llkewlse sub[ecL Lo relmbursemenL of
Lhe cosL of Lhe lmprovemenL 1he sub[ecL
properLy was preclsely declared as Lhe
excluslve properLy of Alfredo on Lhe basls of
ArLlcle 120 of Lhe lamlly ode

WhaL ls lnconLroverLlble ls LhaL Lhe
respondenLs desplLe Lhe allegaLlons
conLalned ln Lhe omplalnL LhaL Lhey are Lhe
buyers of Lhe sub[ecL premlses are noL
peLlLloner's spouse nor can Lhey ever be
deemed as Lhe ownerspouse upon whom Lhe
obllgaLlon Lo relmburse peLlLloner for her
cosLs resLed lL ls Lhe ownerspouse who has
Lhe obllgaLlon Lo relmburse Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp or Lhe spouse who expended Lhe
acLs or efforLs as Lhe case may be CLherwlse
sLaLed respondenLs do noL have Lhe
obllgaLlon Lo respecL peLlLloner's rlghL Lo be
relmbursed

age 29 of 49

kkVII

M81C vs ASCUAL
Gk 163744

Iacts

8espondenL nlcholson ascual and llorencla
nevalga were marrled on !anuary 19 1983
uurlng Lhe unlon llorencla boughL from
spouses larlLo and 8elen Serlng a 230square
meLer loL wlLh a Lhreedoor aparLmenL
sLandlng Lhereon locaLed ln MakaLl lLy 1he
1ransfer erLlflcaLe of 1lLle (11) coverlng Lhe
purchased loL (LoL no 136283) was lssued ln
Lhe name of llorencla marrled Lo nelson
ascual aka nlcholson ascual

ln 1994 llorencla flled a sulL for Lhe
declaraLlon of nulllLy of marrlage under ArLlcle
36 l w/c was granLed by Lhe Cuezon lLy
81 ln 1993 ln Lhe same declslon Lhe 81
lotet ollo ordered Lhe dlssoluLlon and
llquldaLlon of Lhe exspouses con[ugal
parLnershlp of galns w/c Lhe laLLer falled

Cn Aprll 30 1997 llorencla LogeLher wlLh
spouses norberLo and Llvlra Cllveros
obLalned a 38 mllllon loan from peLlLloner
MeLropollLan 8ank and 1rusL o
(MeLrobank) 1o secure Lhe obllgaLlon
llorencla and Lhe spouses Cllveros execuLed
several real esLaLe morLgages (8LMs) on Lhelr
properLles lncludlng one loL no 136283 uue
Lo Lhe fallure of llorencla and Lhe sps Cllveros
Lo pay Lhelr loan obllgaLlon M81 foreclosed
Lhe properLy
nlcholson flled on !une 28 2000 before Lhe
MakaLl 81 a omplalnL Lo declare Lhe nulllLy
of Lhe morLgage of Lhe dlspuLed properLy
alleglng LhaL Lhe properLy whlch ls sLlll
con[ugal properLy was morLgaged wlLhouL hls
consenL

M81 alleged LhaL Lhe dlspuLed loL belng
reglsLered ln llorencla's name was
paraphernal llorencla was declared ln
defaulL 1he 81 rendered [udgmenL flndlng
for nlcholson 1he A afflrmed Lhe 81 buL
deleLed Lhe award moral damages and
aLLorney's fees
Issue

WheLher or noL Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls
con[ugal parLnershlp properLy under ArLlcle
116 of Lhe lamlly ode

ne|d

1he courL ruled ln favor of nlcholson 1he
dlspuLed properLy ls con[ugal

Whlle MeLrobank ls correcL ln saylng LhaL ArL
160 of Lhe lvll ode noL ArL 116 of Lhe
lamlly ode ls Lhe appllcable legal provlslon
slnce Lhe properLy was acqulred prlor Lo Lhe
enacLmenL of Lhe lamlly ode lL errs ln lLs
Lheory LhaL before con[ugal ownershlp could
be legally presumed Lhere musL be a showlng
LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred durlng
marrlage uslng con[ugal funds ArL 160 of Lhe
new lvll ode provldes LhaL all properLy of
Lhe marrlage ls presumed Lo be con[ugal
parLnershlp unless lL be proven LhaL lL
perLalns excluslvely Lo Lhe husband or Lo Lhe
wlfe 1hls arLlcle does noL requlre proof LhaL
Lhe properLy was acqulred wlLh funds of Lhe
parLnershlp 1he presumpLlon applles even
when Lhe manner ln whlch Lhe properLy was
acqulred does noL appear

As nlcholson apLly polnLs ouL lf proof obLalns
on Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe properLy durlng Lhe
exlsLence of Lhe marrlage Lhen Lhe
presumpLlon of con[ugal ownershlp applles
roof of acqulslLlon durlng Lhe marlLal
coverLure ls a condlLlon sloe poo ooo for Lhe
operaLlon of Lhe presumpLlon ln favor of
con[ugal ownershlp When Lhere ls no
showlng as Lo when Lhe properLy was
acqulred by Lhe spouse Lhe facL LhaL a LlLle ls
ln Lhe name of Lhe spouse ls an lndlcaLlon LhaL
Lhe properLy belongs excluslvely Lo sald
spouse








age 30 of 49

kkVIII

MUC2 vs kAMIkL2
Gk 1S612S

IAC1S

Sub[ecL of Lhe presenL case ls a sevenLyseven
(77)square meLer resldenLlal house and loL
locaLed aL 170 A 8onlfaclo SLreeL
Mandaluyong lLy (sub[ecL properLy) covered
by 1ransfer erLlflcaLe of 1lLle (11) no 7630
of Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of Mandaluyong lLy
ln Lhe name of Lhe peLlLloner 1he resldenLlal
loL ln Lhe sub[ecL properLy was prevlously
covered by 11 no 1427 ln Lhe name of
Lrllnda 8amlrez marrled Lo Lllseo arlos
(respondenLs) Cn Aprll 6 1989 Lllseo a
8ureau of lnLernal 8evenue employee
morLgaged 11 no 1427 wlLh Lrllnda's
consenL Lo Lhe CovernmenL Servlce lnsurance
SysLem (CSlS) Lo secure a 13630000
houslng loan payable wlLhln LwenLy (20)
years Lhrough monLhly salary deducLlons of
168766 1he respondenLs Lhen consLrucLed
a LhlrLyslx (36)square meLer LwosLory
resldenLlal house on Lhe loL

Cn !uly 14 1993 Lhe LlLle Lo Lhe sub[ecL
properLy was Lransferred Lo Lhe peLlLloner by
vlrLue of a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale daLed Aprll
30 1992 execuLed by Lrllnda for herself and
as aLLorneylnfacL of Lllseo for a sLaLed
conslderaLlon of 60200000 Cn SepLember
24 1993 Lhe respondenLs flled a complalnL
wlLh Lhe 81 for Lhe nulllflcaLlon of Lhe deed
of absoluLe sale clalmlng LhaL Lhere was no
sale buL only a morLgage LransacLlon and Lhe
documenLs Lransferrlng Lhe LlLle Lo Lhe
peLlLloner's name were falslfled

1he respondenLs alleged LhaL ln Aprll 1992
Lhe peLlLloner granLed Lhem a 60000000
loan Lo be secured by a flrsL morLgage on 11
no 1427 Lhe peLlLloner gave Lrllnda a
20000000 advance Lo cancel Lhe CSlS
morLgage and made her slgn a documenL
purporLlng Lo be Lhe morLgage conLracL Lhe
peLlLloner promlsed Lo glve Lhe 40200000
balance when Lrllnda surrenders 11 no
1427 wlLh Lhe CSlS morLgage cancelled and
submlLs an affldavlL slgned by Lllseo sLaLlng
LhaL he walves all hls rlghLs Lo Lhe sub[ecL
properLy wlLh Lhe 20000000 advance
Lrllnda pald CSlS 17644327 Lo cancel Lhe
CSlS morLgage on 11 no 1427 ln May 1992
Lrllnda surrendered Lo Lhe peLlLloner Lhe
clean 11 no 1427 buL reLurned Lllseo's
affldavlL unslgned slnce Lllseo's affldavlL was
unslgned Lhe peLlLloner refused Lo glve Lhe
40200000 balance and Lo cancel Lhe
morLgage and demanded LhaL Lrllnda reLurn
Lhe 20000000 advance slnce Lrllnda could
noL reLurn Lhe 20000000 advance because
lL had been used Lo pay Lhe CSlS loan Lhe
peLlLloner kepL Lhe LlLle and ln 1993 Lhey
dlscovered LhaL 11 no 7630 had been lssued
ln Lhe peLlLloner's name cancelllng 11
no1427 ln Lhelr name

1he peLlLloner counLered LhaL Lhere was a
valld conLracL of sale Pe alleged LhaL Lhe
respondenLs sold Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo hlm
afLer he refused Lhelr offer Lo morLgage Lhe
sub[ecL properLy because Lhey lacked paylng
capaclLy and were unwllllng Lo pay Lhe
lncldenLal charges Lhe sale was wlLh Lhe
lmplled promlse Lo repurchase wlLhln one
year durlng whlch perlod (from May 1 1992
Lo Aprll 30 1993) Lhe respondenLs would
lease Lhe sub[ecL properLy for a monLhly
renLal of 30000 when Lhe respondenLs
falled Lo repurchase Lhe sub[ecL properLy
wlLhln Lhe oneyear perlod desplLe noLlce he
caused Lhe Lransfer of LlLle ln hls name on !uly
14 1993

ln a ueclslon daLed !anuary 23 1997 Lhe 81
dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL lL found LhaL Lhe
sub[ecL properLy was Lrllnda's excluslve
paraphernal properLy LhaL was lnherlLed from
her faLher

1he A declded Lhe appeal on !une 23 2002
Applylng Lhe second paragraph of ArLlcle 138
of Lhe lvll ode and allmllmanullas v
Pon lorLun Lhe A held LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
properLy orlglnally Lrllnda's excluslve
paraphernal properLy became con[ugal
properLy when lL was used as collaLeral for a
houslng loan LhaL was pald Lhrough con[ugal
funds Lllseo's monLhly salary deducLlons
age 31 of 49

Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lherefore cannoL be
valldly sold or morLgaged wlLhouL Lllseo's
consenL pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly
ode 1hus Lhe A declared vold Lhe deed of
absoluLe sale and seL aslde Lhe 81 declslon

ISSUL

WheLher Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls paraphernal
or con[ugal

nLLD

As a general rule all properLy acqulred durlng
Lhe marrlage wheLher Lhe acqulslLlon appears
Lo have been made conLracLed or reglsLered
ln Lhe name of one or boLh spouses ls
presumed Lo be con[ugal unless Lhe conLrary
ls proved

ln Lhe presenL case clear evldence LhaL
Lrllnda lnherlLed Lhe resldenLlal loL from her
faLher has sufflclenLly rebuLLed Lhls
presumpLlon of con[ugal ownershlp ursuanL
Lo ArLlcles 92 and 109 of Lhe lamlly ode
properLles acqulred by graLulLous LlLle by
elLher spouse durlng Lhe marrlage shall be
excluded from Lhe communlLy properLy and
be Lhe excluslve properLy of each spouse 1he
resldenLlal loL Lherefore ls Lrllnda's excluslve
paraphernal properLy

1he courL held LhaL Lhey cannoL subscrlbe Lo
Lhe A's mlsplaced rellance on ArLlcle 138 of
Lhe lvll ode and allmllmanullas

As Lhe respondenLs were marrled durlng Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe lvll ode lLs provlslons on
con[ugal parLnershlp of galns (ArLlcles 142 Lo
189) should have governed Lhelr properLy
relaLlons Powever wlLh Lhe enacLmenL of
Lhe lamlly ode on AugusL 3 1989 Lhe lvll
ode provlslons on con[ugal parLnershlp of
galns lncludlng ArLlcle 138 have been
superseded by Lhose found ln Lhe lamlly ode
(ArLlcles 103 Lo 133) ArLlcle 103 of Lhe lamlly
ode sLaLes
x x x x

1he provlslons of Lhls hapLer on Lhe
on[ugal arLnershlp of Calns shall also apply
Lo con[ugal parLnershlps of galns already
esLabllshed beLween spouses before Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhls ode wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo
vesLed rlghLs already acqulred ln accordance
wlLh Lhe lvll ode or oLher laws as provlded
ln ArLlcle 236 1hus ln deLermlnlng Lhe naLure
of Lhe sub[ecL properLy we refer Lo Lhe
provlslons of Lhe lamlly ode and noL Lhe
lvll ode excepL wlLh respecL Lo rlghLs Lhen
already vesLed

ArLlcle 120 of Lhe lamlly ode whlch
supersedes ArLlcle 138 of Lhe lvll ode
provldes Lhe soluLlon ln deLermlnlng Lhe
ownershlp of Lhe lmprovemenLs LhaL are
made on Lhe separaLe properLy of Lhe
spouses aL Lhe expense of Lhe parLnershlp or
Lhrough Lhe acLs or efforLs of elLher or boLh
spouses under Lhls provlslon when Lhe cosL
of Lhe lmprovemenL and any resulLlng
lncrease ln value are more Lhan Lhe value of
Lhe properLy aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lmprovemenL
Lhe enLlre properLy of one of Lhe spouses shall
belong Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp sub[ecL Lo
relmbursemenL of Lhe value of Lhe properLy of
Lhe ownerspouse aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
lmprovemenL oLherwlse sald properLy shall
be reLalned ln ownershlp by Lhe owner
spouse llkewlse sub[ecL Lo relmbursemenL of
Lhe cosL of Lhe lmprovemenL

ln Lhe presenL case we flnd LhaL Lllseo pald a
porLlon only of Lhe CSlS loan Lhrough monLhly
salary deducLlons lrom Aprll 6 1989 Lo Aprll
30 1992 Lllseo pald abouL 6073376 noL
Lhe enLlre amounL of Lhe CSlS houslng loan
plus lnLeresL slnce Lhe peLlLloner advanced
Lhe 17644327 pald by Lrllnda Lo cancel Lhe
morLgage ln 1992 onslderlng Lhe
13630000 amounL of Lhe CSlS houslng loan
lL ls falrly reasonable Lo assume LhaL Lhe value
of Lhe resldenLlal loL ls conslderably more
Lhan Lhe 6073376 amounL pald by Lllseo
Lhrough monLhly salary deducLlons

1hus Lhe sub[ecL properLy remalned Lhe
excluslve paraphernal properLy of Lrllnda aL
Lhe Llme she conLracLed wlLh Lhe peLlLloner
Lhe wrlLLen consenL of Lllseo Lo Lhe
LransacLlon was noL necessary 1he n8l
flndlng LhaL Lllseo's slgnaLures ln Lhe speclal
age 32 of 49

power of aLLorney and affldavlL were forgerles
was lmmaLerlal

kIk

Imam| v M81C
Gk # 187023]Nov 17 2010

Iacts

Cn AugusL 28 1981 Lvangellne u lmanl
(peLlLloner) slgned a onLlnulng SureLyshlp
AgreemenL ln favor of respondenL MeLrobank
wlLh esar uazo nleves uazo 8enedlcLo
uazo ynLhla uazo uoroLeo lundales !r
and nlcolas once as her cosureLles As
sureLles Lhey bound Lhemselves Lo pay
MeLrobank whaLever lndebLedness uazo
1annery lnc (u1l) lncurs buL noL
exceedlng Slx Mllllon esos (600000000)
LaLer u1l obLalned loans of 10000000
and 6382343 respecLlvely 1he loans were
evldenced by promlssory noLes slgned by
esar and nleves uazo u1l defaulLed ln Lhe
paymenL of lLs loans MeLrobank made
several demands for paymenL upon u1l
buL Lo no avall 1hls prompLed MeLrobank Lo
flle a collecLlon sulL agalnsL u1l and lLs
sureLles lncludlng hereln peLlLloner 81
ruled ln favor of MeLrobank MeLrobank Lhen
flled wlLh Lhe 81 a moLlon for execuLlon
whlch was granLed on uecember 7 1999 A
wrlL of execuLlon was lssued agalnsL u1l
and lLs codefendanLs 1he sherlff levled on a
properLy coverlng a loL reglsLered ln Lhe name
of peLlLloner eLlLloner argued LhaL Lhe
sub[ecL properLy belongs Lo Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp as such lL cannoL be held
answerable for Lhe llablllLles lncurred by
u1l Lo MeLrobank nelLher can lL be
sub[ecL of levy on execuLlon or publlc
aucLlon Pence peLlLloner prayed for Lhe
nulllflcaLlon of Lhe levy on execuLlon and Lhe
aucLlon sale as well as Lhe cerLlflcaLe of sale
ln favor of MeLrobank

Issue

WCn or noL Lhe properLy ln quesLlon ls
con[ugal

ku||ng

All properLy of Lhe marrlage ls presumed Lo be
con[ugal Powever for Lhls presumpLlon Lo
apply Lhe parLy who lnvokes lL musL flrsL
prove LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred durlng
Lhe marrlage roof of acqulslLlon durlng Lhe
coverLure ls a condlLlon slne qua non Lo Lhe
operaLlon of Lhe presumpLlon ln favor of Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp 1hus Lhe Llme when Lhe
properLy was acqulred ls maLerlal Slmllarly
Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle could noL supporL
peLlLloner's asserLlon As apLly ruled by Lhe
A Lhe facL LhaL Lhe land was reglsLered ln
Lhe name of Lvangellna uazolmanl marrled
Lo Slna lmanl ls no proof LhaL Lhe properLy
was acqulred durlng Lhe spouses' coverLure
AcqulslLlon of LlLle and reglsLraLlon Lhereof
are Lwo dlfferenL acLs lL ls well seLLled LhaL
reglsLraLlon does noL confer LlLle buL merely
conflrms one already exlsLlng

CnAkGLS UCN AND C8LIGA1ICNS CI 1nL
CCNIUGAL Ak1NLkSnI
kkk

AALA INVLS1 AND DLV'1 CCk vs CA
Gk 11830S

Iacts

hlllpplne 8loomlng Mllls (8M) obLalned a
loan from Ayala lnvesLmenL and uevelopmenL
orporaLlon (Alu) As added securlLy for Lhe
credlL llne exLended Lo 8M Alfredo hlng
Lv of 8M execuLed securlLy agreemenLs
maklng hlmself [olnLly and severally
answerable wlLh 8Ms lndebLedness Lo Alu

8M falled Lo pay Lhe loan 1hus Alu flled a
case for sum of money agalnsL 8M and
Alfredo hlng AfLer Lrlal Lhe courL rendered
[udgmenL orderlng 8M and Alfredo hlng Lo
[olnLly and severally pay Alu Lhe prlnclpal
amounL of 3030000000 wlLh lnLeresLs
endlng appeal and upon moLlon of Alu Lhe
lower courL lssued a wrlL of execuLlon and Lhe
uepuLy Sherlff caused Lhe lssuance and
servlce upon spouses hlng of a noLlce of
sherlff sale on Lhree (3) of Lhelr con[ugal
properLles Spouses hlng flled a case of
age 33 of 49

ln[uncLlon Lo en[oln Lhe aucLlon sale alleglng
LhaL Lhe [udgmenL cannoL be enforced agalnsL
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp levled on Lhe ground
LhaL among oLhers Lhe sub[ecL loan dld noL
redound Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe sald con[ugal
parLnershlp

8oLh Lhe 81 and Lhe A ruled LhaL Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp of galns of spouses hlng
ls noL llable for Lhe paymenL of Lhe debLs
secured by Lhe husband Alfredo hlng

Issue

WheLher Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp should noL
be made llable for Lhe sureLy agreemenL
enLered lnLo by Lhe husband ln favor of hls
employer

ne|d

?eslf Lhe husband hlmself ls Lhe prlnclpal
obllgor ln Lhe conLracL le he dlrecLly
recelved Lhe money and servlces Lo be used ln
or for hls own buslness or hls own professlon
LhaL conLracL falls wlLhln Lhe Lerm
obllgaLlons for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp Pere no acLual beneflL may be
proved lL ls enough LhaL Lhe beneflL Lo Lhe
famlly ls apparenL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe slgnlng of
Lhe conLracL lrom Lhe very naLure of Lhe
conLracL of loan or servlces Lhe famlly sLands
Lo beneflL from Lhe loan faclllLy or servlces Lo
be rendered Lo Lhe buslness or professlon of
Lhe husband

Cn Lhe oLher hand lf Lhe money or servlces
are glven Lo anoLher person or enLlLy and Lhe
husband acLed only as a sureLy or guaranLor
LhaL conLracL cannoL by lLself alone be
caLegorlzed as falllng wlLhln Lhe conLexL of
obllgaLlons for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp 1he conLracL of loan or servlces
ls clearly for Lhe beneflL of Lhe prlnclpal
debLor and noL for Lhe sureLy or hls famlly no
presumpLlon can be lnferred LhaL when a
husband enLers lnLo a conLracL of sureLy or
accommodaLlon agreemenL lL ls for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp roof
musL be presenLed Lo esLabllsh beneflL
redoundlng Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
ArLlcle 121 paragraph 3 of Lhe lamlly ode ls
emphaLlc LhaL Lhe paymenL of personal debLs
conLracLed by Lhe husband or Lhe wlfe before
or durlng Lhe marrlage shall noL be charged Lo
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp excepL Lo Lhe exLenL
LhaL Lhey redounded Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe
famlly Pere Lhe properLy ln dlspuLe also
lnvolves Lhe famlly home 1he loan ls a
corporaLe loan noL a personal one Slgnlng as
a sureLy ls cerLalnly noL an exerclse of an
lndusLry or professlon nor an acL of
admlnlsLraLlon for Lhe beneflL of Lhe famlly
kkkI

nCNCkIC L CAkLCS peLlLloner
vs
MANULL 1 A8LLAkDC respondenL
Gk 146S04

Iacts

eLlLloner averred ln hls complalnL flled on
CcLober 13 1994 LhaL ln CcLober 1989
respondenL and hls wlfe Marla 1heresa
arlosAbelardo approached hlm and
requesLed hlm Lo advance Lhe amounL of
uS$2300000 for Lhe purchase of a house and
loL locaLed aL #19932 hesLnuL SLreeL
LxecuLlve PelghLs vlllage aranaque MeLro
Manlla 1o enable and asslsL Lhe spouses
conducL Lhelr marrled llfe lndependenLly and
on Lhelr own peLlLloner ln CcLober 31 1989
lssued a check ln Lhe name of a cerLaln ura
valle[o seller of Lhe properLy who
acknowledged recelpL Lhereof
1
1he amounL
was ln full paymenL of Lhe properLy

When peLlLloner lnqulred from Lhe spouses ln
!uly 1991 as Lo Lhe sLaLus of Lhe amounL he
loaned Lo Lhem Lhe laLLer acknowledged Lhelr
obllgaLlon buL pleaded LhaL Lhey were noL yeL
ln a poslLlon Lo make a deflnlLe seLLlemenL of
Lhe same
2
1hereafLer respondenL expressed
vlolenL reslsLance Lo peLlLloner's lnqulrles on
Lhe amounL Lo Lhe exLenL of maklng varlous
deaLh LhreaLs agalnsL peLlLloner
3


Cn AugusL 24 1994 peLlLloner made a formal
demand for Lhe paymenL of Lhe amounL of
uS$2300000 buL Lhe spouses falled Lo
comply wlLh Lhelr obllgaLlon
4
1hus on
age 34 of 49

CcLober 13 1994 peLlLloner flled a complalnL
for collecLlon of a sum of money and damages
agalnsL respondenL and hls wlfe before Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal ourL of valenzuela 8ranch
172 dockeLed as lvll ase no 4490v94 ln
Lhe complalnL peLlLloner asked for Lhe
paymenL of Lhe uS$2300000 or 62300000
lLs equlvalenL ln hlllpplne currency plus legal
lnLeresL from daLe of exLra[udlclal
demand
3
eLlLloner llkewlse clalmed moral
and exemplary damages aLLorney's fees and
cosLs of sulL from respondenL
6


As Lhey were separaLed ln facL for more Lhan
a year prlor Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL
respondenL and hls wlfe flled separaLe
answers Marla 1heresa arlosAbelardo
admlLLed securlng a loan LogeLher wlLh her
husband from peLlLloner
7
She clalmed
however LhaL sald loan was payable on a
sLaggered basls so she was surprlsed when
peLlLloner demanded lmmedlaLe paymenL of
Lhe full amounL
8


ln hls separaLe Answer respondenL admlLLed
recelvlng Lhe amounL of uS$2300000 buL
clalmed LhaL

a uefendanL (respondenL) xxx
revlved LhaL oLherwlse dormanL
consLrucLlon flrm PL A8LCS
CnS18u1lCn of hereln
plalnLlff whlch suffered
Lremendous seLback afLer Lhe
assasslnaLlon of SenaLor 8enlgno
Aqulno
b Worklng day and nlghL and
almosL beyond human
endurance defendanL devoLed
all hls efforLs and sklll used all
hls buslness and personal
connecLlon Lo be able Lo revlve
Lhe consLrucLlon buslness of
plalnLlff
c LlLLlebyllLLle sLarLlng wlLh
small consLrucLlon buslness
defendanL was able Lo obLaln
varlous consLrucLlon [obs uslng
Lhe name PL A8LCS
CnS18u1lCn and Lhe lncome
derlved Lherefrom were
deposlLed ln Lhe name of such
flrm of plalnLlff
d uefendanL xxx was made Lo
belleve LhaL Lhe earnlngs derlved
from such consLrucLlon wlll be
for hlm and hls famlly slnce he
was Lhe one worklng Lo secure
Lhe conLracL and lLs compleLlon
he was allowed Lo use Lhe
faclllLles of Lhe plalnLlff
e 1he plalnLlff seelng Lhe
progress broughL abouL by
defendanL xxx Lo hls company
proposed a proflL sharlng scheme
Lo Lhe effecL LhaL all pro[ecLs
amounLlng Lo more Lhan 10
mllllon shall be for Lhe accounL of
plalnLlff lower amounL shall be
for defendanL's accounL buL sLlll
uslng PL A8LCS
CnS18u1lCn
f 8uL Lo clear accounL on
prevlous consLrucLlon conLracLs
LhaL broughL lncome Lo
PLA8LCS CnS18u1lCn ouL
of whlch defendanL derlved hls
lncome plalnLlff gave Lhe
amounL of uS$2300000 Lo
defendanL Lo square off accounL
and Lo sLarL Lhe arrangemenL ln
paragraph (e) supra
g 1haL Lhe sald uS$2300000
was never lnLended as loan of
defendanL lL was hls share of
lncome on conLracLs obLalned by
defendanL

8espondenL denled havlng made deaLh
LhreaLs Lo peLlLloner and by way of
compulsory counLerclalm he asked for moral
damages from peLlLloner for causlng Lhe
allenaLlon of hls wlfe's love and affecLlon
aLLorney's fees and cosLs of sulL
10


Cn !une 26 1996 Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal ourL
rendered a declslon ln favor of peLlLloner

Issue

O 1he courL of appeals erred ln flndlng
lnsufflclenL evldence Lo prove LhaL Lhe
age 3S of 49

amounL of us$2300000 was a loan
obLalned by prlvaLe respondenL and
hls wlfe from peLlLloner

O 1he courL of appeals erred ln holdlng
LhaL Lhe us$2300000 was glven as
prlvaLe respondenL's share ln Lhe
proflLs of PL arlos onsLrucLlon
lnc and LhaL Lhe flllng of Lhe
complalnL ls a hoax

O 1he courL of appeals erred ln
nulllfylng Lhe award of damages for
lack of proof Lhereof

ne|d

Larly ln Llme lL musL be noLed LhaL paymenL
of personal debLs conLracLed by Lhe husband
or Lhe wlfe before or durlng Lhe marrlage shall
noL be charged Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
excepL lnsofar as Lhey redounded Lo Lhe
beneflL of Lhe famlly 1he defendanLs never
denled LhaL Lhe check of uS$2300000 was
used Lo purchase Lhe sub[ecL house and loL
1hey do noL deny LhaL Lhe same served as
Lhelr con[ugal home Lhus beneflLlng Lhe
famlly Cn Lhe same prlnclple
acknowledgmenL of Lhe loan made by Lhe
defendanLwlfe blnds Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp slnce lLs proceeds redounded Lo
Lhe beneflL of Lhe famlly Pence defendanL
husband and defendanLwlfe are [olnLly and
severally llable ln Lhe paymenL of Lhe loan

uefendanLhusband cannoL allege as a
defense LhaL Lhe amounL of uS $2300000
was recelved as hls share ln Lhe lncome or
proflLs of Lhe corporaLlon and noL as a loan
llrsLly defendanLhusband does noL appear
Lo be a sLockholder nor an employee nor an
agenL of Lhe corporaLlon P L arlos
onsLrucLlon lnc Slnce he ls noL a
sLockholder he has no rlghL Lo parLlclpaLe ln
Lhe lncome or proflLs Lhereof ln Lhe same
manner LhaL as he ls noL an employee nor an
agenL of P L arlos onsLrucLlon lnc he has
no rlghL Lo recelve any salary or commlsslon
Lherefrom Secondly Lhe amounL advanced
for Lhe purchase of Lhe house and loL came
from Lhe personal accounL of Lhe plalnLlff lf
lndeed lL was Lo be consLrued as defendanL
husband's share ln Lhe proflLs of Lhe
corporaLlon Lhe checks should come from Lhe
corporaLlon's accounL and noL from Lhe
plalnLlff's personal accounL conslderlng LhaL
Lhe corporaLlon has a personallLy separaLe
and dlsLlncL from LhaL of lLs sLockholders and
offlcers

Lven granLlng LhaL Lhe checks amounL Lo uS
$300000000 glven by Lhe plalnLlff Lo Lhe
defendanLspouses was Lhelr share ln Lhe
proflLs of Lhe corporaLlon sLlll Lhere ls no
sufflclenL evldence Lo esLabllsh LhaL Lhe uS
$2300000 ls Lo be LreaLed slmllarly
uefendanLhusband ln lnvoklng Lhe defense of
compensaLlon argued LhaL lf lndeed Lhey were
lndebLed Lo Lhe plalnLlff Lhe laLLer could have
applled Lhelr share ln Lhe proceeds or lncome
of Lhe corporaLlon Lo Lhe concurrenL amounL
of Lhe alleged loan lnsLead of glvlng Lhe
amounL of 300000000 Lo Lhem 1hls
argumenL ls unLenable ArLlcle 1278 of Lhe
lvll ode provldes LhaL compensaLlon shall
Lake place when Lwo persons ln Lhelr own
rlghL are debLors and credlLors of each oLher
As lLs lndlcaLes compensaLlon ls a sorL of
balanclng beLween Lwo obllgaLlons ln Lhe
lnsLanL case Lhe plalnLlff and Lhe defendanL
husband are noL debLors and credlLors of each
oLher Lven granLlng LhaL Lhe defendanL
husband's clalm Lo Lhe proflLs of Lhe
corporaLlon ls [usLlfled sLlll compensaLlon
cannoL exLlngulsh hls loan obllgaLlon Lo Lhe
plalnLlff because under such assumpLlon Lhe
defendanL ls deallng wlLh Lhe corporaLlon and
noL wlLh Lhe plalnLlff ln hls personal capaclLy
Pence compensaLlon cannoL Lake place

1he ourL of Appeals Lhus erred ln flndlng
LhaL respondenL's llablllLy was noL proved by
preponderance of evldence Cn Lhe conLrary
Lhe evldence adduced by peLlLloner
sufflclenLly esLabllshed hls clalm LhaL Lhe
uS$2300000 he advanced Lo respondenL and
hls wlfe was a loan

1he loan ls Lhe llablllLy of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 121 of Lhe
lamlly ode
age 36 of 49

ArLlcle 121 1he con[ugal parLnershlp shall be
llable for
xxx
(2) All debLs and obllgaLlons conLracLed durlng
Lhe marrlage by Lhe deslgnaLed admlnlsLraLor
spouse for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp of galns or by boLh spouses or by
one of Lhem wlLh Lhe consenL of Lhe oLher
(3) uebLs and obllgaLlons conLracLed by elLher
spouse wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLher Lo
Lhe exLenL LhaL Lhe famlly may have been
beneflLed
lf Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp ls lnsufflclenL Lo
cover Lhe foregolng llablllLles Lhe spouses
shall be solldarlly llable for Lhe unpald balance
wlLh Lhelr separaLe properLles
xxx

Whlle respondenL dld noL and refused Lo slgn
Lhe acknowledgmenL execuLed and slgned by
hls wlfe undoubLedly Lhe loan redounded Lo
Lhe beneflL of Lhe famlly because lL was used
Lo purchase Lhe house and loL whlch became
Lhe con[ugal home of respondenL and hls
famlly Pence noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe alleged
lack of consenL of respondenL under ArL 21
of Lhe lamlly ode he shall be solldarlly llable
for such loan LogeLher wlLh hls wlfe

We also flnd sufflclenL basls for Lhe award of
damages Lo peLlLloner conLrary Lo Lhe
flndlngs of Lhe ourL of Appeals LhaL
peLlLloner ls noL enLlLled LhereLo

kkkII

S81C vs MAk 1ILkkA CCk
Gk 143382

Iacts

8espondenL Mar 1lerra orporaLlon Lhrough
lLs presldenL Wllfrldo MarLlnez applled for
a 12000000 credlL accommodaLlon wlLh
peLlLloner SecurlLy 8ank and 1rusL ompany
(S81) eLlLloner approved Lhe appllcaLlon
and enLered lnLo a credlL llne agreemenL wlLh
respondenL corporaLlon lL was secured by an
lndemnlLy agreemenL execuLed by lndlvldual
respondenLs Wllfrldo MarLlnez Mlguel !
Lacson and 8lcardo A Lopa who bound
Lhemselves [olnLly and severally wlLh
respondenL corporaLlon for Lhe paymenL of
Lhe loan 1he respondenL corporaLlon flnally
avalled of lLs credlL llne and recelved 9M
CuL of LhaL amounL lL was able Lo pay abouL
4M whlle Lhe remalnlng balance remalned
ouLsLandlng as Lhe corporaLlon suffered
buslness reversals and evenLually ceased
operaLlng 1o enforce lLs clalm agalnsL Lhe
corporaLlon on Lhe remalnlng balance of Lhe
loan peLlLloner flled a complalnL for a sum of
money wlLh a prayer for prellmlnary
aLLachmenL agalnsL respondenL corporaLlon
and lndlvldual respondenLs ln Lhe 8eglonal
1rlal ourL (81) of MakaLl 1he 81 rendered
a declslon holdlng respondenL corporaLlon
and lndlvldual respondenL MarLlnez [olnLly
and severally llable Lo peLlLloner for Lhe
remalnlng balance of Lhe loan lncludlng
lnLeresL and aLLorney's fee lL however found
LhaL Lhe obllgaLlon conLracLed by lndlvldual
respondenL MarLlnez dld noL redound Lo Lhe
beneflL of hls famlly hence lL ordered Lhe
llfLlng of Lhe aLLachmenL on Lhe con[ugal
house and loL of Lhe spouses MarLlnez

ulssaLlsfled wlLh Lhe 81 declslon peLlLloner
appealed Lo Lhe A buL Lhe appellaLe courL
afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon ln LoLo
eLlLloner soughL reconslderaLlon buL lL was
denled Pence Lhls peLlLlon

ISSUL

WCn Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp may be held
llable for an lndemnlLy agreemenL enLered
lnLo by Lhe husband Lo accommodaLe a Lhlrd
parLy?

nLLD

nC

under ArLlcle 161(1) of Lhe lvll ode 8 Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp ls llable for all debLs and
obllgaLlons conLracLed by Lhe husband for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp 8uL
when are debLs and obllgaLlons conLracLed by
Lhe husband alone consldered for Lhe beneflL
of and Lherefore chargeable agalnsL Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp? ls a sureLy agreemenL
age 37 of 49

or an accommodaLlon conLracL enLered lnLo
by Lhe husband ln favor of hls employer
wlLhln Lhe conLemplaLlon of Lhe sald
provlslon?
We ruled as early as 1969 ln Luzon SureLy o
lnc v de Carcla 9 LhaL ln acLlng as a
guaranLor or sureLy for anoLher Lhe husband
does noL acL for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp as Lhe beneflL ls clearly lnLended
for a Lhlrd parLy

ln Ayala lnvesLmenL and uevelopmenL
orporaLlon v ourL of Appeals 10 we ruled
LhaL lf Lhe husband hlmself ls Lhe prlnclpal
obllgor ln Lhe conLracL le Lhe dlrecL
reclplenL of Lhe money and servlces Lo be
used ln or for hls own buslness or professlon
Lhe LransacLlon falls wlLhln Lhe Lerm
obllgaLlons for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp ln oLher words where Lhe
husband conLracLs an obllgaLlon on behalf of
Lhe famlly buslness Lhere ls a legal
presumpLlon LhaL such obllgaLlon redounds Lo
Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp 11

Cn Lhe oLher hand lf Lhe money or servlces
are glven Lo anoLher person or enLlLy and Lhe
husband acLed only as a sureLy or guaranLor
Lhe LransacLlon cannoL by lLself be deemed an
obllgaLlon for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp 12 lL ls for Lhe beneflL of Lhe
prlnclpal debLor and noL for Lhe sureLy or hls
famlly no presumpLlon ls ralsed LhaL when a
husband enLers lnLo a conLracL of sureLy or
accommodaLlon agreemenL lL ls for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp roof
musL be presenLed Lo esLabllsh Lhe beneflL
redoundlng Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp 13
ln Lhe absence of any showlng of beneflL
recelved by lL Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
cannoL be held llable on an lndemnlLy
agreemenL execuLed by Lhe husband Lo
accommodaLe a Lhlrd parLy 14

ln Lhls case Lhe prlnclpal conLracL Lhe credlL
llne agreemenL beLween peLlLloner and
respondenL corporaLlon was solely for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe laLLer 1he accessory conLracL
(Lhe lndemnlLy agreemenL) under whlch
lndlvldual respondenL MarLlnez assumed Lhe
obllgaLlon of a sureLy for respondenL
corporaLlon was slmllarly for Lhe laLLer's
beneflL eLlLloner had Lhe burden of provlng
LhaL Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of Lhe spouses
MarLlnez beneflLed from Lhe LransacLlon lL
falled Lo dlscharge LhaL burden

1o hold Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp llable for an
obllgaLlon perLalnlng Lo Lhe husband alone
defeaLs Lhe ob[ecLlve of Lhe lvll ode Lo
proLecL Lhe solldarlLy and well belng of Lhe
famlly as a unlL 13 1he underlylng concern
of Lhe law ls Lhe conservaLlon of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp 16 Pence lL llmlLs Lhe llablllLy
of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp only Lo debLs and
obllgaLlons conLracLed by Lhe husband for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp

kkkIII

8UADC vs CA
Gk 14S222

Iacts

Spouses 8uado flled a complalnL for damages
agalnsL Lrllnda nlcol wlLh 8ranch 19 of Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal ourL (81) of 8acoor avlLe
whlch orlglnaLed from Lrllnda nlcol's clvll
llablllLy arlslng from Lhe crlmlnal offense of
slander flled agalnsL her by peLlLloners 81
rendered a declslon orderlng Lrllnda Lo pay
damages lL became flnal and execuLory and
laLer on lssued a a wrlL of execuLlon llndlng
Lrllnda nlcol's personal properLles lnsufflclenL
Lo saLlsfy Lhe [udgmenL Lhe uepuLy Sherlff
lssued a noLlce of levy on real properLy on
execuLlon addressed Lo Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds
of avlLe LvenLually a noLlce of sherlff's sale
was lssued 1wo (2) days before Lhe publlc
aucLlon sale on 28 !anuary 1993 an affldavlL
of LhlrdparLy clalm from one Arnulfo l lulo
was recelved by Lhe depuLy sherlff prompLlng
peLlLloners Lo puL up a sherlff's lndemnlLy
bond 1he aucLlon sale proceeded wlLh
peLlLloners as Lhe hlghesL bldder A
cerLlflcaLe of sale was lssued ln favor of
peLlLloners

AlmosL a year laLer on 2 lebruary 1994
8omulo nlcol Lhe husband of Lrllnda nlcol
flled a complalnL for annulmenL of cerLlflcaLe
age 38 of 49

of sale and damages wlLh prellmlnary
ln[uncLlon agalnsL peLlLloners and Lhe depuLy
sherlff 8espondenL as plalnLlff Lhereln
alleged LhaL Lhe defendanLs now peLlLloners
connlved and dlrecLly levled upon and
execuLe hls real properLy wlLhouL exhausLlng
Lhe personal properLles of Lrllnda nlcol
8espondenL averred LhaL Lhere was no proper
publlcaLlon and posLlng of Lhe noLlce of sale
lurLhermore respondenL clalmed LhaL hls
properLy whlch was valued aL 30000000
was only sold aL a very low prlce" of
3168300 whereas Lhe [udgmenL obllgaLlon
of Lrllnda nlcol was only 4000000 1he case
was asslgned Lo 8ranch 21 of Lhe 81 of lmus
avlLe

ln response peLlLloners flled a moLlon Lo
dlsmlss on Lhe grounds of lack of [urlsdlcLlon
and LhaL Lhey had acLed on Lhe basls of a valld
wrlL of execuLlon lLlng ue leoo v 5olvoJot
peLlLloners clalmed LhaL respondenL should
have flled Lhe case wlLh 8ranch 19 where Lhe
[udgmenL orlglnaLed and whlch lssued Lhe
order of execuLlon wrlL of execuLlon noLlce
of levy and noLlce of sherlff's sale 81
dlsmlssed respondenL's complalnL and ruled
LhaL 8ranch 19 has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case
Cn appeal Lhe ourL of Appeals reversed Lhe
Lrlal courL and held LhaL 8ranch 21 has
[urlsdlcLlon Lo acL on Lhe complalnL flled by
appellanL Pence Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon
aLLrlbuLlng grave abuse of dlscreLlon on Lhe
parL of Lhe ourL of Appeals

Issue

WCn Lhe obllgaLlon of Lhe wlfe arlslng from
her crlmlnal llablllLy ls chargeable Lo Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp

ne|d

no1here ls no dlspuLe LhaL conLesLed
properLy ls con[ugal ln naLure ArLlcle 122 of
Lhe lamlly ode expllclLly provldes LhaL
paymenL of personal debLs conLracLed by Lhe
husband or Lhe wlfe before or durlng Lhe
marrlage shall noL be charged Lo Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp excepL lnsofar as Lhey redounded
Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe famlly
unllke ln Lhe sysLem of absoluLe communlLy
where llablllLles lncurred by elLher spouse by
reason of a crlme or pooslJellct ls chargeable
Lo Lhe absoluLe communlLy of properLy ln Lhe
absence or lnsufflclency of Lhe excluslve
properLy of Lhe debLorspouse Lhe same
advanLage ls noL accorded ln Lhe sysLem of
con[ugal parLnershlp of galns 1he con[ugal
parLnershlp of galns has no duLy Lo make
advance paymenLs for Lhe llablllLy of Lhe
debLorspouse

arenLheLlcally by no sLreLch of lmaglnaLlon
can lL be concluded LhaL Lhe clvll obllgaLlon
arlslng from Lhe crlme of slander commlLLed
by Lrllnda redounded Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp

1o relLeraLe con[ugal properLy cannoL be held
llable for Lhe personal obllgaLlon conLracLed
by one spouse unless some advanLage or
beneflL ls shown Lo have accrued Lo Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp

ADMINIS1kA1ICN CI CCNIUGAL
Ak1NLkSnI kCLk1
kkkIV

kCkAS vs CA
Gk 9224S

Iacts

Melanla 8oxa (eLlLloner) ls marrled Lo
AnLonlo 8oxas buL are llvlng separaLely
Melanla found ouL LhaL AnLonlo had enLered
lnLo a conLracL of lease wlLh defendanL
AnLonlo M ayeLano someLlme on March 30
1987 coverlng a porLlon of Lhelr con[ugal loL
slLuaLed ln Cuezon lLy wlLhouL her prevlous
knowledge much less her marlLal consenL
ApparenLly she was Lo puL up a flea markeL ln
Lhe loL and has already flled for a Mayor's
permlL buL Lhe same was denled on renewal
because ayeLano also applled for Lhe same
permlL and was earller granLed She Lhen flled
a complalnL for annulmenL of Lhe conLracL of
lease enLered lnLo wlLhouL her consenL
agalnsL ayeLano who flled a moLlon Lo
dlsmlss Lhe same on Lhe ground of lack of
cause of acLlon
age 39 of 49


Issue

W/n a husband as Lhe admlnlsLraLor of Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp may legally enLer lnLo a
conLracL of lease lnvolvlng con[ugal real
properLy wlLhouL Lhe knowledge and consenL
of Lhe wlfe

ne|d

under Lhe new lvll ode (n) ArL 163
1he husband ls Lhe admlnlsLraLor of Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp ln vlew of Lhe facL LhaL
Lhe husband ls prlnclpally responslble for Lhe
supporL of Lhe wlfe and Lhe resL of Lhe famlly
lf Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp does noL have
enough asseLs lL ls Lhe husbands caplLal LhaL
ls responslble for such supporL noL Lhe
paraphernal properLy 8esponslblllLy should
carry auLhorlLy wlLh lL

1he husband ls noL an ordlnary admlnlsLraLor
for whlle a mere admlnlsLraLor has no rlghL Lo
dlspose of sell or oLherwlse allenaLe Lhe
properLy belng admlnlsLered Lhe husband can
do so ln cerLaln cases allowed by law Pe ls
noL requlred by law Lo render an accounLlng
AcLs done under admlnlsLraLlon do noL need
Lhe prlor consenL of Lhe wlfe

Powever admlnlsLraLlon does noL lnclude
acLs of ownershlp lor whlle Lhe husband can
admlnlsLer Lhe con[ugal asseLs unhampered
he cannoL allenaLe or encumber Lhe con[ugal
realLy 1hus under ArL 166 of n unless
Lhe wlfe has been declared a noncompos
menLls or a spendLhrlfL or ls under clvll
lnLerdlcLlon or ls conflned ln a leprosarlum
Lhe husband cannoL allenaLe or encumber any
real properLy of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp Lhe
wlfes consenL lf she refuses unreasonably Lo
glve her consenL Lhe courL may compel her Lo
granL Lhe same 1hls rule prevenLs abuse on
Lhe parL of Lhe husband and guaranLees Lhe
rlghLs of Lhe wlfe who ls parLly responslble
for Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe properLy
parLlcularly Lhe real properLy onLracLs
enLered lnLo by Lhe husband ln vlolaLlon of
Lhls prohlblLlon are voldable and sub[ecL Lo
annulmenL aL Lhe lnsLance of Lhe aggrleved
wlfe (ArL 173 of Lhe lvll ode)

kkkV

GUIANG vs CA
Gk 12S172

kkkVI

IADLk MANALC vs CAMAISA
Gk 147978

Iacts

eLlLloner made a deflnlLe offer Lo buy Lhe
properLles Lo
respondenL LdllberLo amalsa wlLh Lhe
knowledge and conformlLy of hls wlfe
respondenL norma amalsa AfLer some
bargalnlng peLlLloner and LdllberLo agreed
upon Lhe purchase prlce of Lhe properLy Lo be
pald on lnsLallmenL basls Such agreemenL
was a handwrlLLen by peLlLloner and slgned
by LdllberLo When peLlLloner polnLed ouL Lhe
con[ugal naLure of Lhe
properLles LdllberLo assured her of hls wlfe's
conformlLy and consenL Lo Lhe sale

1he formal LypewrlLLen onLracLs Lo Sell were
LhereafLer prepared by peLlLlonerShe
and LdllberLo meL for Lhe formal slgnlng of
Lhe LypewrlLLen onLracLs Lo Sell
AfLer LdllberLo slgned Lhe
conLracLs peLlLloner dellvered Lo hlm Lwo
checks 1he conLracLs were glven
Lo LdllberLo for Lhe formal afflxlng of hls
wlfe's slgnaLure

1he followlng day peLlLloner recelved a call
from respondenL norma (wlfe) requesLlng a
meeLlng Lo clarlfy some provlslons of Lhe
conLracLs uurlng Lhe meeLlng handwrlLLen
noLaLlons were made on Lhe conLracLs Lo sell
so Lhey arranged Lo lncorporaLe Lhe noLaLlons
and Lo meeL agaln for Lhe formal slgnlng of
Lhe conLracLs

When peLlLloner meL agaln wlLh respondenL
spouses for Lhe formal afflxlng of norma's
slgnaLure she was surprlsed when
age 40 of 49

respondenL spouses lnformed her LhaL Lhey
were backlng ouL of Lhe agreemenL because
Lhey needed spoL cash" for Lhe full amounL
of Lhe conslderaLlon eLlLloner remlnded
respondenL spouses LhaL Lhe conLracLs Lo sell
had already been duly perfecLed and
norma's refusal Lo slgn Lhe same would
unduly pre[udlce peLlLloner SLlll norma
refused Lo slgn Lhe conLracLs prompLlng
peLlLloner Lo flle a complalnL for speclflc
performance and damages agalnsL
respondenL spouses before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal
ourL

Issue

WheLher or noL Lhere ls a perfecLed conLracL
Lo sell of Lhe con[ugal properLy?

ne|d

1here ls no perfecLed sale

1he properLles sub[ecL of Lhe conLracLs ln Lhls
case were con[ugal hence for Lhe conLracLs
Lo sell Lo be effecLlve Lhe consenL of boLh
husband and wlfe musL concur

1he law requlres LhaL Lhe dlsposlLlon of a
con[ugal properLy by Lhe husband as
admlnlsLraLor ln approprlaLe cases requlres
Lhe wrlLLen consenL of Lhe wlfe oLherwlse
Lhe dlsposlLlon ls vold 1hus

ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode provldes
ArL 124 1he admlnlsLraLlon and en[oymenL of
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp properLy shall belong
Lo boLh spouses [olnLly ln case of
dlsagreemenL Lhe husband's declslon shall
prevall sub[ecL Lo recourse Lo Lhe courL by
Lhe wlfe for a proper remedy whlch musL be
avalled of wlLhln flve years from Lhe daLe of
Lhe conLracL lmplemenLlng such declslon

ln Lhe evenL LhaL one spouse ls lncapaclLaLed
or oLherwlse unable Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe con[ugal properLles Lhe
oLher spouse may assume sole powers of
admlnlsLraLlon 1hese powers do noL lnclude
Lhe powers of dlsposlLlon or encumbrance
whlch musL have Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe courL or
Lhe wrlLLen consenL of Lhe oLher spouse ln
Lhe absence of such auLhorlLy or consenL Lhe
dlsposlLlon or encumbrance shall be
vold Powever Lhe LransacLlon shall be
consLrued as a conLlnulng offer on Lhe parL of
Lhe consenLlng spouse and Lhe Lhlrd person
and may be perfecLed as a blndlng conLracL
upon Lhe accepLance by Lhe oLher spouse or
auLhorlzaLlon by Lhe courL before Lhe offer ls
wlLhdrawn by elLher or boLh
offerors (underscorlng ours)

8espondenL norma amalsa admlLLedly dld
noL glve her wrlLLen consenL Lo Lhe sale Lven
granLlng LhaL respondenL norma acLlvely
parLlclpaLed ln negoLlaLlng for Lhe sale of Lhe
sub[ecL properLles whlch she denled her
wrlLLen consenL Lo Lhe sale ls requlred by law
for lLs valldlLy SlgnlflcanLly peLlLloner herself
admlLs LhaL norma refused Lo slgn Lhe
conLracLs Lo sell 8espondenL norma may
have been aware of Lhe negoLlaLlons for Lhe
sale of Lhelr con[ugal properLles Powever
belng merely aware of a LransacLlon ls noL
consenL

kkkVII

U vs CA
Gk 109SS

kkkVIII

VILLANULVA vs CnICNG
Gk 1S9889

Iacts

8espondenLs llorenLlno and Lllsera hlong
were marrled someLlme ln !anuary 1960 buL
have been separaLed ln facL slnce 1973
uurlng Lhelr marrlage Lhey acqulred a LoL
slLuaLed aL oblaclon ulpolog lLy SomeLlme
ln 1983 llorenLlno sold Lhe onehalf wesLern
porLlon of Lhe loL Lo peLlLloners for 8000
payable ln lnsLallmenLs 1hereafLer
llorenLlno allowed peLlLloners Lo occupy Lhe
loL and bulld a sLore a shop and a house
Lhereon ShorLly afLer Lhelr lasL lnsLallmenL
paymenL on uecember 13 19863
peLlLloners demanded from respondenLs Lhe
age 41 of 49

execuLlon of a deed of sale ln Lhelr favor
Lllsera however refused Lo slgn a deed of
sale Cn May 13 1992 llorenLlno execuLed
Lhe quesLloned ueed of AbsoluLe Sale ln favor
of peLlLloners Cn !uly 19 2000 Lhe 81 ln lLs
!olnL ueclslon annulled Lhe deed of absoluLe
sale daLed May 13 1992 and ordered
peLlLloners Lo vacaLe Lhe loL and remove all
lmprovemenLs Lhereln 1he ourL of Appeals
afflrmed Lhe 81s declslon

Issue

(1) ls Lhe sub[ecL loL an excluslve properLy of
llorenLlno or a con[ugal properLy of
respondenLs?
(2) Was lLs sale by llorenLlno wlLhouL Lllseras
consenL valld?

ku||ng

AnenL Lhe flrsL lssue peLlLloners conLenLlon
LhaL Lhe loL belongs excluslvely Lo llorenLlno
because of hls separaLlon ln facL from hls
wlfe Lllsera aL Lhe Llme of sale dlssolved
Lhelr properLy relaLlons ls berefL of merlL
8espondenLs separaLlon ln facL nelLher
affecLed Lhe con[ugal naLure of Lhe loL nor
pre[udlced Lllseras lnLeresL over lL under
ArLlcle 178 of Lhe lvll ode Lhe separaLlon ln
facL beLween husband and wlfe wlLhouL
[udlclal approval shall noL affecL Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp 1he loL reLalns lLs con[ugal
naLure AnenL Lhe second lssue Lhe sale by
llorenLlno wlLhouL Lllseras consenL ls noL
however vold ab lnlLlo ln vda de 8amones
v Agbayanl clLlng vlllaranda v vlllaranda we
held LhaL wlLhouL Lhe wlfes consenL Lhe
husbands allenaLlon or encumbrance of
con[ugal properLy prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of
Lhe lamlly ode on AugusL 3 1988 ls noL vold
buL merely voldable

Applylng ArLlcle 166 Lhe consenL of boLh
Lllsera and llorenLlno ls necessary for Lhe sale
of a con[ugal properLy Lo be valld ln Lhls
case Lhe requlslLe consenL of Lllsera was noL
obLalned when llorenLlno verbally sold Lhe loL
ln 1983 and execuLed Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe
Sale on May 13 1992 Accordlngly Lhe
conLracL enLered by llorenLlno ls annullable aL
Lllseras lnsLance durlng Lhe marrlage and
wlLhln Len years from Lhe LransacLlon
quesLloned conformably wlLh ArLlcle 173
lorLunaLely Lllsera Llmely quesLloned Lhe sale
when she flled lvll ase no 4383 on !uly 3
1991 perfecLly wlLhln Len years from Lhe daLe
of sale and execuLlon of Lhe deed

kkkIk

DLLA CkU2 vs SLGCVIA
Gk 149801

Iacts

!ose onsuegra ln hls llfeLlme marrled Lwlce
Lo 8osarlo ulaz on !uly 13 1937 and on May
1 1937 Lo 8asllla 8erdlm whlle Lhe 1
sL

marrlage was sLlll subslsLlng Pe faLhered 2
chlldren (boLh already dead) from 8osarlo and
7 from 8asllla When he dled on SepL 261963
Lhe proceeds of hls CSlS llfe lnsurance pollcy
were pald Lo 8asllla and Lhelr chlldren belng
Lhe beneflclarles sLaLed ln Lhe pollcy 8osarlo
on Lhe oLher hand flled a clalm over Lhe
reLlremenL lnsurance pollcy proceeds clalmlng
Lo be !ose's only legal helr 8asllla also flled a
slmllar clalm asserLlng LhaL as beneflclarles
named ln Lhe llfe lnsurance pollcy Lhe
reLlremenL lnsurance pollcy llkewlse belong Lo
Lhem CSlS ruled LhaL 8osarlo and 8asllla are
boLh !ose's wlves Lherefore Lhe proceeds
musL be glven Lo Lhem 1/2 porLlon each
ulssaLlsfled 8asllla flled a peLlLlon for
mandamus wlLh prellmlnary ln[uncLlon Lo ll
praylng LhaL she and her chlldren be declared
as Lhe excluslve beneflclarles of Lhe sald
reLlremenL lnsurance proceeds 1rlal ourL
quoLlng Lao vs uee held LhaL When 2
women lnnocenLly and ln good falLh are
legally unlLed ln holy maLrlmony Lo Lhe same
man Lhey and Lhelr chlldren born of sald
wedlock wlll be regarded as leglLlmaLe
chlldren and each famlly be enLlLled Lo Z of
Lhe esLaLe 8asllla appealed Pence Lhls case

Issue

1o whom should Lhls reLlremenL lnsurance
beneflLs be pald when no beneflclary was
deslgnaLed
age 42 of 49

ne|d

1o boLh wlves CSlS lnLended LhaL Lhe llfe and
reLlremenL lnsurance be separaLe and dlsLlncL
Lherefore beneflclary of one lnsurance ls noL
auLomaLlcally Lhe beneflclary of Lhe oLher
Slnce Lhe defendanL's flrsL marrlage has noL
been dlssolved or declared vold Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp esLabllshed by LhaL marrlage has
noL ceased nor has Lhe flrsL wlfe losL or
rellnqulshed her sLaLus as puLaLlve helr of her
husband under Lhe n she ls enLlLled Lo
share ln hls esLaLe upon hls deaLh should she
survlve hlm onsequenLly wheLher as
con[ugal parLner ln a sLlll subslsLlng marrlage
or as such puLaLlve helr she has an lnLeresL ln
Lhe husband's share ln Lhe properLy here ln
dlspuLe" quoLlng 1rlal ourL's declslon And
wlLh respecL Lo Lhe rlghL of Lhe second wlfe
Lhls ourL observed LhaL alLhough Lhe second
marrlage can be presumed Lo be vold ab lnlLlo
as lL was celebraLed whlle Lhe flrsL marrlage
was sLlll subslsLlng sLlll Lhere ls need for
[udlclal declaraLlon of such nulllLy And
lnasmuch as Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp formed
by Lhe second marrlage was dlssolved before
[udlclal declaraLlon of lLs nulllLy Lhe only [usL
and equlLable soluLlon ls Lo recognlze Lhe
rlghL of Lhe 2
nd
wlfe Lo her share of Z ln Lhe
properLy acqulred by her and her husband
and conslder Lhe oLher half as perLalnlng Lo
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of Lhe flrsL marrlage

kL

kAVINA vs VILLA A8kILLL
Gk 160708

Iacts

8espondenL Mary Ann asaol vllla Abrllle and
edro vllla Abrllle are husband and wlfe
1hey have four chlldren who are also parLles
Lo Lhe lnsLanL case and are represenLed by
Lhelr moLher Mary Ann

ln 1982 Lhe spouses acqulred a 333square
meLer parcel of land denomlnaLed as LoL 7
locaLed aL kamunlng SLreeL !una Subdlvlslon
MaLlna uavao lLy and covered by 1ransfer
erLlflcaLe of 1lLle (11) no 188674 ln Lhelr
names Sald loL ls ad[acenL Lo a parcel of land
whlch edro acqulred when he was sLlll slngle
and whlch ls reglsLered solely ln hls name
under 11 no 126471

1hrough Lhelr [olnL efforLs and Lhe proceeds
of a loan from Lhe uevelopmenL 8ank of Lhe
hlllpplnes (u8) Lhe spouses bullL a house
on LoL 7 and edro's loL 1he house was
flnlshed ln Lhe early 1980's buL Lhe spouses
conLlnuously made lmprovemenLs lncludlng a
poulLry house and an annex

ln 1991 edro goL a mlsLress and began Lo
neglecL hls famlly Mary Ann was forced Lo
sell or morLgage Lhelr movables Lo supporL
Lhe famlly and Lhe sLudles of her chlldren 8y
hlmself edro offered Lo sell Lhe house and
Lhe Lwo loLs Lo hereln peLlLloners aLroclnla
and Wllfredo 8avlna Mary Ann ob[ecLed and
noLlfled Lhe peLlLloners of her ob[ecLlons buL
edro noneLheless sold Lhe house and Lhe
Lwo loLs wlLhouL Mary Ann's consenL as
evldenced by a ueed of Sale daLed !une 21
1991 lL appears on Lhe sald deed LhaL Mary
Ann dld noL slgn on Lop of her name

Cn !uly 3 1991 whlle Mary Ann was ouLslde
Lhe house and Lhe four chlldren were ln
school edro LogeLher wlLh armed members
of Lhe lvlllan Armed lorces Ceographlcal
unlL (AlCu) and acLlng ln connlvance wlLh
peLlLloners began Lransferrlng all Lhelr
belonglngs from Lhe house Lo an aparLmenL

When Mary Ann and her daughLer lngrld vllla
Abrllle came home Lhey were sLopped from
enLerlng lL 1hey walLed ouLslde Lhe gaLe unLll
evenlng under Lhe raln 1hey soughL help
from Lhe 1alomo ollce SLaLlon buL pollce
auLhorlLles refused Lo lnLervene saylng LhaL lL
was a famlly maLLer Mary Ann alleged LhaL
Lhe lncldenL caused sLress Lenslon and
anxleLy Lo her chlldren so much so LhaL one
flunked aL school 1hus respondenLs Mary
Ann and her chlldren flled a complalnL for
AnnulmenL of Sale Speclflc erformance
uamages and ALLorney's lees wlLh
rellmlnary MandaLory ln[uncLlon agalnsL
edro and hereln peLlLloners (Lhe 8avlnas) ln
Lhe 81 of uavao lLy
age 43 of 49

uurlng Lhe Lrlal edro declared LhaL Lhe
house was bullL wlLh hls own money
eLlLloner aLroclnla 8avlna LesLlfled LhaL Lhey
boughL Lhe house and loL from edro and
LhaL her husband peLlLloner Wllfredo 8avlna
examlned Lhe LlLles when Lhey boughL Lhe
properLy

Issue

O 1he courL of appeals erred when lL
declared x x x Lhe sale of loL covered
by LcL no 88674 ln favor of spouses
ravlna LogeLher wlLh Lhe house
Lhereon as null and vold slnce lL ls
clearly conLrary Lo law and evldence

O 1he courL of appeals erred when lL
ruled LhaL peLlLloners paLroclnla
ravlna and wllfredo ravlna are noL
lnnocenL purchasers for value Lhe
same belng conLrary Lo law and
evldence

O 1he courL of appeals erred when lL
ruled LhaL peLlLloners paLroclnla
ravlna and wllfredo ravlna are llable
for damages Lhe same belng conLrary
Lo law and evldence

ne|d

ArLlcle 160 of Lhe new lvll ode provldes
All properLy of Lhe marrlage ls presumed Lo
belong Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp unless lL
be proved LhaL lL perLalns excluslvely Lo Lhe
husband or Lo Lhe wlfe"

1here ls no lssue wlLh regard Lo Lhe loL
covered by 11 no 126471 whlch was an
excluslve properLy of edro havlng been
acqulred by hlm before hls marrlage Lo Mary
Ann Powever Lhe loL covered by 11 no 1
88674 was acqulred ln 1982 durlng Lhe
marrlage of edro and Mary Ann no evldence
was adduced Lo show LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
properLy was acqulred Lhrough exchange or
barLer 1he presumpLlon of Lhe con[ugal
naLure of Lhe properLy subslsLs ln Lhe absence
of clear saLlsfacLory and convlnclng evldence
Lo overcome sald presumpLlon or Lo prove
LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls excluslvely owned
by edro eLlLloners' bare asserLlon would
noL sufflce Lo overcome Lhe presumpLlon LhaL
11 no 188674 acqulred durlng Lhe
marrlage of edro and Mary Ann ls con[ugal
Llkewlse Lhe house bullL Lhereon ls con[ugal
properLy havlng been consLrucLed Lhrough
Lhe [olnL efforLs of Lhe spouses who had even
obLalned a loan from u8 Lo consLrucL Lhe
house

SlgnlflcanLly a sale or encumbrance of
con[ugal properLy concluded afLer Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe lamlly ode on AugusL 3
1988 ls governed by ArLlcle 124 of Lhe same
ode LhaL now LreaLs such a dlsposlLlon Lo be
vold lf done (a) wlLhouL Lhe consenL of boLh
Lhe husband and Lhe wlfe or (b) ln case of
one spouse's lnablllLy Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe
courL ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode Lhe
governlng law aL Lhe Llme Lhe assalled sale
was conLracLed ls expllclL

A81 124 1he admlnlsLraLlon and en[oymenL
of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp properLy shall
belong Lo boLh spouses [olnLly ln case of
dlsagreemenL Lhe husband's declslon shall
prevall sub[ecL Lo recourse Lo Lhe courL by
Lhe wlfe for proper remedy whlch musL be
avalled of wlLhln flve years from Lhe daLe of
Lhe conLracL lmplemenLlng such declslon

ln Lhe evenL LhaL one spouse ls lncapaclLaLed
or oLherwlse unable Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe con[ugal properLles Lhe
oLher spouse may assume sole powers of
admlnlsLraLlon 1hese powers do noL lnclude
Lhe powers of dlsposlLlon or encumbrance
whlch musL have Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe courL or
Lhe wrlLLen consenL of Lhe oLher spouse In
the absence of such author|ty or consent the
d|spos|t|on or encumbrance sha|| be vo|d
Powever Lhe LransacLlon shall be consLrued
as a conLlnulng offer on Lhe parL of Lhe
consenLlng spouse and Lhe Lhlrd person and
may be perfecLed as a blndlng conLracL upon
Lhe accepLance by Lhe oLher spouse or
auLhorlzaLlon by Lhe courL before Lhe offer ls
wlLhdrawn by elLher or boLh offerors
(Lmphasls supplled)
age 44 of 49

1he parLlcular provlslon ln Lhe new lvll ode
glvlng Lhe wlfe Len (10) years Lo annul Lhe
allenaLlon or encumbrance was noL carrled
over Lo Lhe lamlly ode lL ls Lhus clear LhaL
allenaLlon or encumbrance of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp properLy by Lhe husband wlLhouL
Lhe consenL of Lhe wlfe ls null and vold

Pence [usL llke Lhe rule ln absoluLe
communlLy of properLy lf Lhe husband
wlLhouL knowledge and consenL of Lhe wlfe
sells con[ugal properLy such sale ls vold lf
Lhe sale was wlLh Lhe knowledge buL wlLhouL
Lhe approval of Lhe wlfe Lhereby resulLlng ln
a dlsagreemenL such sale ls annullable aL Lhe
lnsLance of Lhe wlfe who ls glven flve (3) years
from Lhe daLe Lhe conLracL lmplemenLlng Lhe
declslon of Lhe husband Lo lnsLlLuLe Lhe case
Pere respondenL Mary Ann Llmely flled Lhe
acLlon for annulmenL of sale wlLhln flve (3)
years from Lhe daLe of sale and execuLlon of
Lhe deed Powever her acLlon Lo annul Lhe
sale perLalns only Lo Lhe con[ugal house and
loL and does noL lnclude Lhe loL covered by
11 no 126471 a properLy excluslvely
belonglng Lo edro and whlch he can dlspose
of freely wlLhouL Mary Ann's consenL

Cn Lhe second asslgnmenL of error
peLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhey are buyers ln
good falLh Accordlngly Lhey need noL lnqulre
wheLher Lhe loL was purchased by money
excluslvely belonglng Lo edro or of Lhe
common fund of Lhe spouses and may rely on
Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle

1he conLenLlon ls berefL of merlL As correcLly
held by Lhe ourL of Appeals a purchaser ln
good falLh ls one who buys Lhe properLy of
anoLher wlLhouL noLlce LhaL some oLher
person has a rlghL Lo or lnLeresL ln such
properLy and pays a full and falr prlce for Lhe
same aL Lhe Llme of such purchase or before
he has noLlce of Lhe clalm or lnLeresL of some
oLher person ln Lhe properLy 1o esLabllsh hls
sLaLus as a buyer for value ln good falLh a
person deallng wlLh land reglsLered ln Lhe
name of and occupled by Lhe seller need only
show LhaL he relled on Lhe face of Lhe seller's
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle 8uL for a person deallng
wlLh land reglsLered ln Lhe name of and
occupled by Lhe seller whose capaclLy Lo sell ls
resLrlcLed such as by ArLlcles 166 and 173 of
Lhe lvll ode or Art|c|e 124 of Lhe lamlly
ode he musL show LhaL he lnqulred lnLo Lhe
laLLer's capaclLy Lo sell ln order Lo esLabllsh
hlmself as a buyer for value ln good falLh

ln Lhe presenL case Lhe properLy ls reglsLered
ln Lhe name of edro and hls wlfe Mary Ann
eLlLloners cannoL deny knowledge LhaL
durlng Lhe Llme of Lhe sale ln 1991 edro was
marrled Lo Mary Ann Powever Mary Ann's
conformlLy dld noL appear ln Lhe deed Lven
assumlng LhaL peLlLloners belleved ln good
falLh LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls Lhe excluslve
properLy of edro Lhey were apprlsed by
Mary Ann's lawyer of her ob[ecLlon Lo Lhe sale
and yeL Lhey sLlll proceeded Lo purchase Lhe
properLy wlLhouL Mary Ann's wrlLLen
consenL Moreover Lhe respondenLs were
Lhe ones ln acLual vlslble and publlc
possesslon of Lhe properLy aL Lhe Llme Lhe
LransacLlon was belng made 1hus aL Lhe
Llme of sale peLlLloners knew LhaL Mary Ann
has a rlghL Lo or lnLeresL ln Lhe sub[ecL
properLles and yeL Lhey falled Lo obLaln her
conformlLy Lo Lhe deed of sale Pence
peLlLloners cannoL now lnvoke Lhe proLecLlon
accorded Lo purchasers ln good falLh

now lf a voldable conLracL ls annulled Lhe
resLoraLlon of whaL has been glven ls proper
1he relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe parLles ln any
conLracL even lf subsequenLly annulled musL
always be characLerlzed and puncLuaLed by
good falLh and falr deallng Pence ln
consonance wlLh [usLlce and equlLy and Lhe
saluLary prlnclple of nonenrlchmenL aL
anoLher's expense we susLaln Lhe appellaLe
courL's order dlrecLlng edro Lo reLurn Lo
peLlLloner spouses Lhe value of Lhe
conslderaLlon for Lhe loL covered by 11 no
188674 and Lhe house Lhereon

Powever Lhls courL rules LhaL peLlLloners
cannoL clalm relmbursemenLs for
lmprovemenLs Lhey lnLroduced afLer Lhelr
good falLh had ceased As correcLly found by
Lhe ourL of Appeals peLlLloner aLroclnla
8avlna made lmprovemenLs and renovaLlons
on Lhe house and loL aL Lhe Llme when Lhe
age 4S of 49

complalnL agalnsL Lhem was flled 8avlna
conLlnued lnLroduclng lmprovemenLs durlng
Lhe pendency of Lhe acLlon
1hus ArLlcle 449 of Lhe new lvll ode ls
appllcable lL provldes LhaL (h)e who bullds
planLs or sows ln bad falLh on Lhe land of
anoLher loses whaL ls bullL planLed or sown
wlLhouL rlghL Lo lndemnlLy"

Cn Lhe lasL lssue peLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhe
declslon awardlng damages Lo respondenLs ls
noL supporLed by Lhe evldence on record

1he clalm ls erroneous Lo say Lhe leasL 1he
manner by whlch respondenL and her chlldren
were removed from Lhe famlly home deserves
our condemnaLlon Cn !uly 3 1991 whlle
respondenL was ouL and her chlldren were ln
school edro vllla Abrllle acLlng ln connlvance
wlLh Lhe peLlLloners surrepLlLlously
Lransferred all Lhelr personal belonglngs Lo
anoLher place 1he respondenLs Lhen were
noL allowed Lo enLer Lhelr rlghLful home or
famlly abode desplLe Lhelr lmpassloned pleas

llrmly esLabllshed ln our clvll law ls Lhe
docLrlne LhaL Lvery person musL ln Lhe
exerclse of hls rlghLs and ln Lhe performance
of hls duLles acL wlLh [usLlce glve everyone
hls due and observe honesLy and good
falLh" When a rlghL ls exerclsed ln a manner
LhaL does noL conform wlLh such norms and
resulLs ln damages Lo anoLher a legal wrong ls
Lhereby commlLLed for whlch Lhe wrong doer
musL be held responslble Slmllarly any
person who wlllfully causes loss or ln[ury Lo
anoLher ln a manner LhaL ls conLrary Lo
morals good cusLoms or publlc pollcy shall
compensaLe Lhe laLLer for Lhe damages
caused lL ls paLenL ln Lhls case LhaL
peLlLloners' alleged acLs fall shorL of Lhese
esLabllshed clvll law sLandards









LI

AGGA8AC vs AkULAN
Gk 16S803

lacLs

8espondenL Ma Llena allegedly made a sale
of Lwo parcels of land wlLh Lhelr
lmprovemenLs consldered as con[ugal
properLy by presenLlng a speclal power of
aLLorney Lo sell (SA) purporLedly execuLed by
respondenL husband ulonlslo ln her favor 1he
sale by Ma Llena was made ln favor of Lhe
spouses vendees/peLlLloners who allegedly
acLed ln good falLh and pald Lhe full purchase
prlce desplLe Lhe showlng by Lhe husband
LhaL hls slgnaLure on Lhe SA had been forged
and LhaL Lhe SA had been execuLed durlng
hls absence from Lhe counLry and whlle he
and Ma Llena have been esLranged from one
anoLher When ulonlslo learned abouL Lhe
alleged sale he flled for an acLlon for Lhe
dec|arat|on of the nu|||ty of the deed of
abso|ute sa|e executed by Ma L|ena and the
cance||at|on of the t|t|e |ssued to the
pet|t|oners by v|rtue thereof 1he 81 ruled
ln hls favor and declared LhaL Lhe SA was
forged 1he declslon of Lhe 81 was afflrmed
by Lhe A Pence Lhe presenL case flled by
peLlLloners lmpuLlng error Lo Lhe A for noL
applylng Lhe ordlnary prudenL man's
sLandard" ln deLermlnlng Lhelr sLaLus as
buyers ln good falLh 1he peLlLloners submlL
LhaL ArLlcle 173 of Lhe lvll ode noL ArLlcle
124 of Lhe lamlly ode governed Lhe
properLy relaLlons of Lhe respondenLs because
Lhey had been marrled prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy
of Lhe lamlly ode and LhaL Lhe second
paragraph of ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode
should noL apply because Lhe oLher spouse
held Lhe admlnlsLraLlon over Lhe con[ugal
properLy 1hey argue LhaL noLwlLhsLandlng hls
absence from Lhe counLry ulonlslo sLlll held
Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe con[ugal properLy by
vlrLue of hls execuLlon of Lhe SA ln favor of
hls broLher and LhaL even assumlng LhaL
ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode properly
applled ulonlslo raLlfled Lhe sale Lhrough
ALLy arulan's counLeroffer durlng Lhe
March 23 1991 meeLlng
age 46 of 49

lSSuL WCn ArLlcle 173 of Lhe lvll ode and
ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode should apply Lo
Lhe sale of Lhe con[ugal properLy execuLed
wlLhouL Lhe consenL of ulonlslo

ne|d

nC

1o sLarL wlLh ArLlcle 23427 Lhe lamlly ode
has expressly repealed several LlLles under Lhe
lvll ode among Lhem Lhe enLlre 1lLle vl ln
whlch Lhe provlslons on Lhe properLy relaLlons
beLween husband and wlfe ArLlcle 173
lncluded are found

Secondly Lhe sale was made on March 18
1991 or afLer AugusL 3 1988 Lhe effecLlvlLy
of Lhe lamlly ode 1he proper law Lo apply ls
Lherefore ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode for
|t |s sett|ed that any a||enat|on or
encumbrance of con[uga| property made
dur|ng the effect|v|ty of the Iam||y Code |s
governed by Art|c|e 124 of the Iam||y
Code28

ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly ode provldes

ArLlcle 124 1he admlnlsLraLlon and
en[oymenL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
properLy shall belong Lo boLh spouses [olnLly

ln case of dlsagreemenL Lhe husband's
declslon shall prevall sub[ecL Lo recourse Lo
Lhe courL by Lhe wlfe for proper remedy
whlch musL be avalled of wlLhln flve years
from Lhe daLe of Lhe conLracL lmplemenLlng
such declslon

ln Lhe evenL LhaL one spouse ls lncapaclLaLed
or oLherwlse unable Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe con[ugal properLles Lhe
oLher spouse may assume sole powers of
admlnlsLraLlon 1hese powers do noL lnclude
dlsposlLlon or encumbrance wlLhouL auLhorlLy
of Lhe courL or Lhe wrlLLen consenL of Lhe
oLher spouse ln Lhe absence of such auLhorlLy
or consenL Lhe dlsposlLlon or encumbrance
shall be vold Powever Lhe LransacLlon shall
be consLrued as a conLlnulng offer on Lhe parL
of Lhe consenLlng spouse and Lhe Lhlrd
person and may be perfecLed as a blndlng
conLracL upon Lhe accepLance by Lhe oLher
spouse or auLhorlzaLlon by Lhe courL before
Lhe offer ls wlLhdrawn by elLher or boLh
offerors

1hlrdly accordlng Lo ArLlcle 23629 of Lhe
lamlly ode Lhe provlslons of Lhe lamlly
ode may apply reLroacLlvely provlded no
vesLed rlghLs are lmpalred ln 1umlos v
lernandez30 Lhe ourL re[ecLed Lhe
peLlLloner's argumenL LhaL Lhe lamlly ode
dld noL apply because Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe
conLesLed properLy had occurred prlor Lo Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe lamlly ode and polnLed
ouL LhaL ArLlcle 236 provlded LhaL Lhe lamlly
ode could apply reLroacLlvely lf Lhe
appllcaLlon would noL pre[udlce vesLed or
acqulred rlghLs exlsLlng before Lhe effecLlvlLy
of Lhe lamlly ode Pereln however Lhe
peLlLloners dld noL show any vesLed rlghL ln
Lhe properLy acqulred prlor Lo AugusL 3 1988
LhaL exempLed Lhelr slLuaLlon from Lhe
reLroacLlve appllcaLlon of Lhe lamlly ode

lourLhly Lhe peLlLloners falled Lo subsLanLlaLe
Lhelr conLenLlon LhaL ulonlslo whlle holdlng
Lhe admlnlsLraLlon over Lhe properLy had
delegaLed Lo hls broLher ALLy arulan Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe properLy conslderlng
LhaL Lhey dld noL presenL ln courL Lhe SA
granLlng Lo ALLy arulan Lhe auLhorlLy for Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon

noneLheless we stress that the power of
adm|n|strat|on does not |nc|ude acts of
d|spos|t|on or encumbrance wh|ch are acts
of str|ct ownersh|p As such an author|ty to
d|spose cannot proceed from an author|ty to
adm|n|ster and v|ce versa for the two
powers may on|y be exerc|sed by an agent by
fo||ow|ng the prov|s|ons on agency of the
C|v|| Code (from ArLlcle 1876 Lo ArLlcle 1878)

Speclflcally Lhe apparenL auLhorlLy of ALLy
arulan belng a speclal agency was llmlLed Lo
Lhe sale of Lhe properLy ln quesLlon and dld
noL lnclude or exLend Lo Lhe power Lo
admlnlsLer Lhe properLy31

age 47 of 49

LasLly Lhe peLlLloners' lnslsLence LhaL ALLy
arulan's maklng of a counLeroffer durlng Lhe
March 23 1991 meeLlng raLlfled Lhe sale
merlLs no conslderaLlon under ArLlcle 124 of
Lhe lamlly ode Lhe LransacLlon execuLed
sans Lhe wrlLLen consenL of ulonlslo or Lhe
proper courL order was vold hence
raLlflcaLlon dld noL occur for a vold conLracL
could noL be raLlfled32

Cn Lhe oLher hand we agree wlLh ulonlslo
LhaL Lhe vold sale was a conLlnulng offer from
Lhe peLlLloners and Ma Llena LhaL ulonlslo
had Lhe opLlon of accepLlng or re[ecLlng
before Lhe offer was wlLhdrawn by elLher or
boLh Ma Llena and Lhe peLlLloners 1he lasL
senLence of Lhe second paragraph of ArLlcle
124 of Lhe lamlly ode makes Lhls clear
sLaLlng LhaL ln Lhe absence of Lhe oLher
spouse's consenL Lhe LransacLlon should be
consLrued as a conLlnulng offer on Lhe parL of
Lhe consenLlng spouse and Lhe Lhlrd person
and may be perfecLed as a blndlng conLracL
upon Lhe accepLance by Lhe oLher spouse or
upon auLhorlzaLlon by Lhe courL before Lhe
offer ls wlLhdrawn by elLher or boLh offerors

D|sso|ut|on of the Con[uga| artnersh|p
keg|me

LII

Ak1CSA IC vs CA
Gk 82606

Iacts

1he hereln prlvaLe respondenL !ose !o
admlLs Lo havlng cohablLed wlLh Lhree women
and faLhered flfLeen chlldren 1he flrsL of
Lhese women rlma arLosa!o clalms Lo be
hls legal wlfe whom he begoL a daughLer
Monlna !o 1he oLher women and Lhelr
respecLlve offsprlng are noL parLles of Lhls
case ln 1980 rlma flled a complalnL agalnsL
!ose for [udlclal separaLlon of con[ugal
properLy 1he 81 rendered a declslon and ln
Lhe dlsposlLlve porLlon lL sLaLed supporL buL
noL Lhe separaLlon of con[ugal properLles Cn
appeal 1he peLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe
respondenL courL has mlslnLerpreLed ArLlcles
173 178 and 191 of Lhe lvll ode She
submlLs LhaL Lhe agreemenL beLween her and
Lhe prlvaLe respondenL was for her Lo
Lemporarlly llve wlLh her parenLs durlng Lhe
lnlLlal perlod of her pregnancy and for hlm Lo
vlslL and supporL her 1hey never agreed Lo
separaLe permanenLly And even lf Lhey dld
Lhls arrangemenL was repudlaLed and ended
ln 1942 when she reLurned Lo hlm aL
uumagueLe lLy and he refused Lo accepL her

Issue

WCn Lhe refusal of Lhe husband Lo accepL hls
wlfe consLlLuLes abandonmenL whlch ls a
ground for Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhelr properLy
reglme

ku||ng

1he peLlLloner lnvokes ArLlcle 178 (3) of Lhe
lvll ode whlch reads

ArL 178 1he separaLlon ln facL
beLween husband and wlfe wlLhouL [udlclal
approval shall noL affecL Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp excepL LhaL
xxx xxx xxx
(3) lf Lhe husband has abandoned Lhe
wlfe wlLhouL [usL cause for aL leasL one year
she may peLlLlon Lhe courL for a recelvershlp
or admlnlsLraLlon by her of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp properLy or separaLlon of
properLy

AbandonmenL lmplles a deparLure by one
spouse wlLh Lhe avowed lnLenL never Lo
reLurn followed by prolonged absence
wlLhouL [usL cause and wlLhouL ln Lhe
meanLlme provldlng ln Lhe leasL for ones
famlly alLhough able Lo do so 1here musL be
absoluLe cessaLlon of marlLal relaLlons duLles
and rlghLs wlLh Lhe lnLenLlon of perpeLual
separaLlon 6 1hls ldea ls clearly expressed ln
Lhe abovequoLed provlslon whlch sLaLes LhaL
a spouse ls deemed Lo have abandoned Lhe
oLher when he or she has lefL Lhe con[ugal
dwelllng wlLhouL any lnLenLlon of reLurnlng

1he record shows LhaL as early as 1942 Lhe
prlvaLe respondenL had already re[ecLed Lhe
age 48 of 49

peLlLloner whom he denled admlsslon Lo
Lhelr con[ugal home ln uumagueLe lLy when
she reLurned from ZamboangulLa 1he facL
LhaL she was noL accepLed by !o demonsLraLes
all Loo clearly LhaL he had no lnLenLlon of
resumlng Lhelr con[ugal relaLlonshlp

Moreover beglnnlng 1968 unLll Lhe
deLermlnaLlon by Lhls ourL of Lhe acLlon for
supporL ln 1988 Lhe prlvaLe respondenL
refused Lo glve flnanclal supporL Lo Lhe
peLlLloner 1he physlcal separaLlon of Lhe
parLles coupled wlLh Lhe refusal by Lhe
prlvaLe respondenL Lo glve supporL Lo Lhe
peLlLloner sufflced Lo consLlLuLe
abandonmenL as a ground for Lhe [udlclal
separaLlon of Lhelr con[ugal properLy

LIII

ALIIC vs CA
Gk 134100

Iacts

!arlng (8omeo) was Lhe lessee of a 143 hec
flshpond ln 8arlLoMabuco Permosa 8aLaan
Lease was for 3 yrs endlng on Sep 12 1990
ln !une 19 1987 Lll Lhe end of Lhe lease
perlod !arlng subleased Lhe flshpond Lo sps
Allplo and sps Manuel 1he sLlpulaLed renL ls
48360000 payable ln 2 lnsLallmenLs of
300k and 18360000 1he second
lnsLallmenL due on !une 30 1989

Sublessees falled Lo pay enLlre second
lnsLallmenL leavlng a balance of 3060000
w/c Lhey falled Lo pay desplLe Allplo's
demands 1hus he flled a case agalnsL sald
sublessees asklng for paymenL of Lhe balance
or resclsslon of Lhe conLracL should Lhey fall Lo
pay Lhe balance

urlLa Allplo peLlLloned for Lhe dlsmlssal of
Lhe case lnvoklng 8ule 3 Sec 21 of Lhe 1964
8ules of ourL clalmlng LhaL such was
appllcable slnce her husband and co
sublessee passed away prlor LoLhe flllng of
Lhls acLlon Sald rule has been amended by
8ule 3 Sec 201997 8ules of lvll rocedure
1he 1rlal courL denled Allplo's peLlLlon
because she was a parLy Lo Lhe conLracL
should be lndependenLly lmpleaded LogeLher
w/Lhe Manuel sps ueaLh of her husband
merely resulLed ln hls excluslon from Lhe case
eLlLloner Manuels were ordered Lo pay
balance and 10k aLLy's fees and cosLs of sulL

Cn appeal Lhe A dlsmlssed Lhe case and
held LhaL Lhe rule lnvoked ls noL appllcable
1he acLlon for recovery of a sum of money
does noL survlve Lhe deaLh of Lhe defendanL
Lhus Lhe remalnlng defendanLs cannoL avold
Lhe acLlon by clalmlng LhaLsuch deaLh LoLally
exLlngulshed Lhelr obllgaLlon When Lhe
acLlon ls solldary credlLor may brlng hls
acLlon agalnsL any of Lhe debLors obllgaLed
lnsolldum Allplo's llablllLy ls lndependenL of
separaLe from her husband's(llmaco vs Sly
uy lmperlal vs uavld and Agacolll vs vda de
Agcaolll)

Issue

W/n a credlLor can sue Lhe survlvlng spouse
of a decedenL ln anordlnary proceedlng for
Lhe collecLlon of a sum of money
chargeableagalnsL Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp

ne|d

nC roper remedy would be Lo flle aclalm ln
Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe decedenL's esLaLe or lf
none has beencommenced he can flle a
peLlLlon elLher for Lhe lssuance of leLLers of
admlnlsLraLlon or for Lhe allowance of wlll
dependlng on wheLher lLsLesLaLe/lnLesLaLe
no shorLcuL by lumplng clalm agalnsL Allplos
wlLh Lhose agalnsL Lhe Manuels

ArL 161 (1) provldes LhaL Lhe obllgaLlon of
Lhe Allplos ls chargeable agalnsL Lhelr con[ugal
parLnershlp slnce lL was conLracLed by Lhe
spouses for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp When peLlLloner's spouse dled
Lhelr C was dlssolved debLs chargeable
agalnsL lL are Lo be pald ln Lhe seLLlemenL of
esLaLe proceedlngs ln accordance w/ 8ule 73
Sec2 w/c provldes LhaL Lhe communlLy
properLy wlll be lnvenLorled admlnlsLered
llquldaLed and debLs Lhereof pald ln Lhe
age 49 of 49

LesLaLe or lnLesLaLe proceedlngs of Lhe
deceased spouse

ln alma vs1anedo Lhe ourL held LhaL no
complalnL for collecLlon of lndebLedness
chargeable Lo Lhe C can be broughL agalnsL
Lhe survlvlng spouse lalm musL be made ln
Lhe proceedlngs for Lhe llquldaLlon
seLLlemenL of Lhe C Survlvlng spouse's
powers of admlnlsLraLlon ceases ls passed
on Lo courLappolnLed admlnlsLraLor 1hls was
afflrmed ln venLura vs MlllLanLe where ourL
held LhaL lack of llquldaLlon proceedlngs does
noL mean LhaL Lhe C conLlnues redlLor
may apply for leLLers of admln ln hls capaclLy
as a prlnclpal credlLor

noLe LhaL for marrlages governed by C
obllgaLlons enLered lnLo by sps are chargeable
agalnsL Lhelr C Lhe parLnershlp ls
prlmarlly bound for Lhe repaymenLs 1hey'll
be lmpleaded as represenLaLlves of Lhe C
and concepL of [olnL/solldary llablllLy does
noL apply AL besL lL wlll noL be solldary buL
[olnL