Carino vs. Carino, supra
Fehr vs. Fehr
G.R. No. 152716. October 23, 2003 Facts:
- March 1983 – petitioner and respondent moved in together in Manila.
- July 1983 – bought Suite 204 of LGC condominium. Deal was executed by respondent and was issued under petitioner‘s name
- 1985 – got married
- 1997 – marriage was declared void under FC 36
- 1999 – RTC issued order resolving their property. This was contested by petitioner adducing that Suite 204, LGC condominium was purchased on installment basis when they were living exclusively as husband and wife without benefit of marriage thus rules on co-ownership should apply (FC Art 147)
- TC: affirmed ruling that condo unit was acquired before marriage thus is solely respondent‘s property
- CA: dismissed petition for lack of merit. Thus the present petition. ISSUE: WON Suite 204 is solely respondent‘s property
HELD: NO
- FC Art 147 – applies to unions of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to marry but whose marriage is still void.
o Elements: (1) must be capacitated to marry each other (2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife (3) union is without benefit of marriage or their marriage is void = all 3 elements are present in this case
o ―Capacitated‖ – legal capacity of party to contract marriage
o presumed that property was obtained through joint efforts. - Evidence clearly shows that condo unit was obtained when they were living exclusively together thus is considered COMMON PROPERTY of petitioner and respondent
Civil code provisions on co-ownership should thus should thus apply to answer property regime of the parties.
Joaquino vs Reyes 434 SCRA 260
Facts: - Rodolfo A. Reyes and Lourdes P. Reyes were
Rodolfo had been living with his paramour, Milagros B. Joaquino.
- As Vice President and Comptroller of Warner Barnes & Company, - Rodolfo obtained a loan of P140k from Commonwealth Insurance Corporation in order to purchase a house and lot in BF Homes, Parañaque. He also mortgaged the same (through a Special Power of Attorney) to pay the balance of the purchase price and secured a life insurance policy from Philam Life Insurance Corporation to guaranty the payment where he paid monthly amortizations. The property was registered under the name of Milagros Joaquino only even though it was purchased with the earnings, and hence conjugal funds, of Rodolfo.
- When Rodolfo died on September 12, 1981, Milagros and their natural children claimed that Milagros was unaware of Rodolfo‘s marriage, that the house and lot as Milagros‘ exclusive which she allegedly obtained with her own funds, that she only authorized Rodolfo to mortgage the house and lot as a matter of convenience but she personally provided funds for the amortization, and that she did not benefit from Rodolfo‘s emoluments and other pecuniary benefits. On the other hand, Lourdes and their children claimed that the properties were conjugal properties because they were paid for by the earnings of Rodolfo during the marriage.
Issue: WON house and lot are conjugal properties
Held: YES
The presumption in favour of the conjugal partnership operates in the case at bar because the properties were acquired during coverture (NCC 160).
- Even though Rodolfo was already living with Milagros when the properties were bought, the rules of co-ownership between persons cohabiting as husband and wife (under NCC 148) only applies to properties acquired by both through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry. Ownership then is proportional to their respective contributions, which are considered equal absent proof to the contrary.
o Art 153 – what are conjugal properties
o Art 144 DOESN‘T APPLY – common law marriages are entitled to co-ownership (50/50) laws IF COUPLES ARE NOT INCAPACITATED TO MARRY EACH OTHER WHICH IN THIS CASE
THEY CLEARLY ARE THUS CAN‘T APPLY.
(X) applied to adultery/concubinag e
o ART 148 does – when common-law couple have a legal impediment, only property acquired by them – through ACTUAL, JOINT CONTRIBUTION OF MONEY, PROEPRTY OR INDUSTRY, shall be owned by them in common and in proportion to their respective properties
This also wasn‘t proven by petitioner since she had no job or money to gain the properties in question. Thus they are conjugal. - The financial capacity of Rodolfo as
VP and Comptroller of WBC, his retirement package, his application for the mortgage loan intended of ‗housing‘ and his monthly amortizations and semi-annual premiums payable to Commonwealth by Philam sufficiently prove that Rodolfo purchased the property by his own funds. And where his salaries are considered cp, the loan and the purchased properties were also cp. - On the other hand, Milagros only
showed Affidavits and undated Certifications to prove that she purchased the properties by her own money, borrowing from her siblings, selling jewellery and selling a drugstore four years prior. The registration of the properties under Milagros‘ name can thus be considered only as a donation that is void under NCC 739 (1) especially where Rodolfo intended to deprive Lourdes of ownership over the properties.
-
In terms of the illegitimate children‘s right to Rodolfo‘s estate, their rights must be determined in a special proceeding instituted for that purpose. The issue was not raised or presented in the original and supplemental complaints for reconveyance of property and damages, in the answers of Milagros and her memorandum. Hence, the illegitimate filiation of her children could not have been duly established in the case at bar.
Gonzales vs Gonzales 478 SCRA 327 Facts:
Before they started living together on March 1977, Francisco Gonzales offered Erminda Gonzales to be his partner in Fiesta Pizza, his pizza business, and to take over its operations. She accepted the offer and took care of the business‘ daily operations, personnel management, outlets supervision, and met people during inspections.
- Despite their marriage on Feb. 4, 1979, the same was declared void under FC 36 on Feb. 12, 1997. Erminda then sought the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and claimed the pizza business to be conjugal property where she contributed to 80% of the total management. Francisco, however, claimed that it was exclusive.
Issue: WON properties should be divided equally between husband and wife
Held: YES
because the marriage was declared void, the property regime that applies is co-ownership under FC 147. Under the rules of co- ownership, properties acquired by both parties during their union (under a void marriage) are presumed to have been obtained through joint
efforts and will be owned by them in equal shares absent proof of the contrary. Francisco admitted in a handwritten letter dated Sept. 6, 1989 that Erminda had helped in the management of the business and was not a mere housewife. Hence, the business is co- owned and both Francisco and Erminda are presumed to have contributed jointly.
- Art 147 applies when )1) when man and woman capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other without benefit of marriage (2) when man and woman live together under void marriage
o Presumption is anything acquired during both instances are obtained through joint efforts and shall be divided equally.
Party who didn‘t participate in acquisition by other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in acquisition if former‘s efforts consisted of care and maintenance of family and household.
FC 148 of FC 50 in rel. to FC 49(2) and FC 50
Juaniza v. Jose