Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
> Know the difference between JURIDICAL CAPACITY and CAPACITY TO ACT.
> Read Cases: Some of the Cases that might be helpful for you are the following:
3. Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA- One of the rare cases so far that Psychological Incapacity of one of the couples is
sustained by the Supreme Court
Presumption of marriage even without record- Balogbog vs. CA, 269 SCRA 259
(1997)
Reappearance of the spouse declared presumptively dead- SSS vs. Bailon, G.R.
No. 165545, March 24, 2006
ADOPTION
FILIATION
Birth Certificate must be signed jointly by the mother and father or by the mother
alone if the father refuses- Reyes vs. CA (135 SCRA 439- 1985)
Mateo v. Lagua
A donation propter nuptias may be revoked for being inofficious. It is wrong to say that a
donation propter nuptias has an onerous consideration, the marriage in this case being
merely the occasion or motive, not the causa. Being liberalities, they remain subject to
reduction for being inofficious upon the donor's death if it infringes on the legitime of any
of the donor's heirs. The DPN in this case was not annuled in its entirety, but only to the
extent that it infringed on the legitime of the donor's heir.
Note that under Art 43(3), a donation is revoked by operation of law, under the
circumstances therein provided. However, Art. 86(1) provides that any revocation in
elective, not automatic.
SOLIS V. BARROSO [53 P 912 (1928)] -A donation propter nuptias of lands in a private
instrument is not valid because the law requires donations of real property to be made in a
public instrument. A donation propter nuptias is not onerous and thus must necessarily be
contained in a public instrument. While the marriage is indeed its consideration it is not so
in the sense of being necessary to give birth to the obligation. In fact, a donation propter
nuptias remains valid even if the marriage does not take place provided it is not revoked
within the period allowed by law. The marriage in donation propter nuptias is rather a
resolutory condition which as such presupposes the existence of the birth of the obligation.
Matabuena v. Cervantes
The prohibition regarding donations made between spouses during the marriage must
apply likewise to a common-law relationship. The policy behind the law, i.e. to protect the
would-be donor spouse from the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence
by the other spouse, is equally or even more applicable to the case of common-law
relationships.
3. VOID DONATIONS
NAZARENO V. BIROG [45 O.G. No. 5, p. 268 (1947)] - A donation made to a grandchild of a
wife by a previous marriage falls under the prohibition Article 133 of the Civil Code (Art. 87,
FC). Said prohibition applies notwithstanding the fact that the provision mentions only legitimate
children. (9 Manresa 236).
Gelano vs. CA
It was an error for the court to hold the spouses liable jointly and severally on an
obligation that redounded to the benefit of the community. The community partnership, as
a single and separate entity, should be liable for the obligation.
G-tractors vs. CA
The obligation incurred here redounded to the benefit of the community
partnership, and thus was a partnership obligation. The land where the logging concession
was located belonged to the family and not to the husband exclusively. Furthermore, the
obligation was incurred to enhance productivity for the logging business, a commercial
enterprise for gain, which the husband, as administrator had every right to enter into on
behalf of the community partnership. The realization of actual profits and benefit on the
part of the partnership is not required, it being sufficient to show that the transaction
normally benefits the partnership.
1. ARTICLE 108
The bank accounts garnished herein were conjugal property and the same may not be
levied upon to pay for personal obligations. The money in the bank accounts were earned as
fruits derived from paraphernal property. As such, they became assets of the conjugal
partnership. No proof was shown here that the obligations were contracted for the benefit of the
partnership. Furthermore, the sheriff may not levy on 1/2 of the amount in these accounts as the
supposed share of the husband. A spouse's share in the conjugal assets is merely inchoate and
cannot be determined until after dissolution of the partnership.
2. ARTICLE 109
The fishpond is 1/6 paraphernal and 5/6 conjugal. The first P1000 was paid out of the
paraphernal property of the wife. Of this amount, P600 was a debt owed to the wife by the
vendor. It is presumed that this debt could bind only the wife since there was no showing that
the husband authorized the wife to contract this debt. The P400 was paid out of proceeds from
the sale of the wife's paraphernal property. The rest of the purchase price was paid out of
partnership funds. The fact that the loan entered into to pay this purchase price was secured by
mortgages over paraphernal property belonging to the wife did not make these obligations
(loans) paraphernal. The mortgage was merely an accessory obligation. The principal obligation
which is the loan pertained to the conjugal partnership.
NOTES:
paraphernal property: exclusive property of the wife
capital: exclusive property of the husband.
e.g. In a case where the separate property is being leased out...the owner spouse may sue alone
for eviction, but must be joined by the other spouse in a suit over rentals.
3. ARTICLE 110
Ong vs. CA
The mere use of the surname of the husband in the tax declaration of the subject
property is not sufficient proof that said property was acquired during the marriage and is
therefore conjugal. It is undisputed that the subject parcel of land was declared solely in the
wife's name, although the house built thereon was declared in the name of the spouses. Under
such circumstances, the Court held that the subject lot was the paraphernal property of the wife
and thus liable for her personal debts.
4. ARTICLE 111
When a loan is negotiated by a husband upon property belonging to his wife, with the
consent of the latter, the money becomes conjugal property, and if the funds are later invested in
the construction of a house, the building is likewise conjugal property and is liable for debts of
the husband. The property in question was a parcel of land belonging to the wife which was
given by the husband as a guaranty for a loan contracted by him. The money obtained through
the loan was later used for the construction of the house.
Balane: The proceeds of the loan pertain to the borrower. The borrower in this case was the
partnership, regardless of the fact that the separate property of the wife was used as a security in
obtaining the loan.
5. ARTICLE 116
While it is true that all property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be
conjugal, as above stated, nonetheless, the party who invokes the presumption must first prove
that the property was acquired during the marriage. This proof is a condition sine qua non for the
application of the presumption.
The presumption of conjugality does not apply in a case where there is no proof of
marriage between the spouses.
6. ARTICLE 117
Even if the wife used conjugal funds to purchase the lot in question, petitioner, who is
an alien, cannot recover or hold the lot so acquired in view of the constitutional prohibition
against aliens acquiring residential lots other than by hereditary succession. He therefore had no
personality to question the subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in
so doing, he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect to conjugal
property. To sustain such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional
prohibition.
Under 117.1, where conjugal funds were spent, then the property acquired belongs to the
partnership
except: 109.3 (pacto de retro acquisition where the right to redemption belongs to one spouse)
7. ARTICLE 118
Notes: in case of property bought on installment, partly from exclusive property and partly
from conjugal funds, the test to determine ownership is to look at when ownership vested.
e.g.
1985 - A buys property from BF payable in installments...A pays installments with
exclusive property
1990 - A marries B. The subsequent amortizations on the property are then paid with
conjugal funds.
9. ARTICLE 120
'Plus value' refers to what the improvement contributes to the increase in the value of the
whole thing.
but because of the irrigation ditches, the value of the land increases to P4.8M
the plus value in this case is P1.8M
the net value of the improvement in P3.8 M
in this case, the entire property becomes conjugal.
Art. 120 applies only on the assumption that the improvement exists at the time of
liquidation...if the property is destroyed before liquidation, then 120 does not apply.
If prior to dissolution, the property and the improvement thereon is sold--then the right of
the CPG under 120 follows the property...the right of the CPG under 120 is inchoate.
Notes:
The following are the steps to be followed in liquidating the CPG:
1. inventory of CP assets
2. restitution of advances made to each spouse e.g. Art. 122.3
3. payment of debts to each spouse e.g. Art. 120
4. payment of obligations to 3rd parties
5. delivery of exclusive properties
6. payment of losses and deterioration of movables belonging to each spouse
reason: CPG is a mere usufructuary of separate properties...not true for ACP
7. division
8. delivery of presumptive legitimes