G.R. No. 143958, July 11, 2003 - Facts:
- Alfred (Australian, German descent) pilot with New Guinea airlines. Started business in Philippines in 1974 and married Teresita Santos (Fil). They separated without divorce in 1981.
- 1983 He met Ederlina Catito (Fil) a masseuse in Australia. Unknown to him she is married to Klaus Muller (German) and lived in Germany for a while. She is fluent in German and Alfred enjoyed talking to her.
- Alfred offered Ederlina to stay in Phil and engage in business. She put up a beauty parlor. Alfred decided to stay in the Philippines for good and live with Ederlina. They acquired properties in the name of Ederlina which Alfred consented to since he plans on marrying Ederlina. Klaus wrote Alfred about his marriage with Ederlina and begged Alfred to return Ederlina. When Alfred confronted Ederlina, she admitted that she and Klaus were married but she assured Alfred that she would divorce Klaus. He agreed to continue the amorous relationship and wait for the outcome of Ederlina‘s petition for divorce. Alfred hired the lawyer. Alfred acquired more properties in the name of Ederlina. Ederlina‘s petition for divorce was denied because Klaus opposed the same. A second petition filed by her met the same fate. Klaus wanted half of all the properties owned by Ederlina in the Philippines before he would agree to a divorce. Worse, Klaus threatened to file a bigamy case against Ederlina
- Alfred and Ederlina‘s relationship started deteriorating. He demanded the return of all the properties acquired by him and Ederlina during their coverture.
- Alfred filed a Complaint on October 28, 1985 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, for recovery of real and personal
properties located in Quezon City and Manila. For Ederlina transfered funds from their joint account in HSBC Hong Kong, to her own account without his knowledge and consent. Using the said funds, Ederlina was able to purchase the properties subject of the complaints. He also alleged that the beauty parlor in Ermita was established with his own funds, and that the Quezon City property was likewise acquired by him with his personal funds.
- Alfred also filed a complaint against Ederlina with the Regional Trial Court, Davao City, for specific performance, declaration of ownership of real and personal properties, sum of money, and damages. (RTC Davao in favor of Ederlina, case dismissed)
- RTC of QC: the purchaser of land is Ederlina (Alfred as an alien was precluded from recovering the properties from the respondent) - CA: upheld RTC (the petitioner knowingly violated the Constitution; hence, was barred from recovering the money used in the purchase of the three parcels of land. It held that to allow the petitioner to recover the money used for the purchase of the properties would embolden aliens to violate the Constitution, and defeat, rather than enhance, the public policy)
-
Pertinent Issues: whether or not the land belongs to Alfred
-
Held/Ratio- No. It belongs to Ederlina.
The constitution prohibits Alfred from owning lands. He cannot recover the money used to buy the properties.
Ayuste vs.CA GR no. 118784, Sept. 2, 1999 - Facts:
- Christina Ayuste married Rafael Ayuste on September 24, 1961. They bought a machine shop (managed by Rafael) in Lucena and bought a parcel
of land also in Lucena. The title of land was in the name of Rafael married to Christina.
- In 1987, Rafael sold the land in favor of private respondent. The
deed of sale was signed by Rafael and Christina. In 1990 Christina filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale. She claims that her signature was forged and the sale was without her knowledge of consent.
- RTC: sale is null and void
- CA: sale is valid, the annulment was instituted after Rafael died (the deed is voidable but complaint should be raised during the marriage as required by Art. 173.)
-
Pertinent Issues: whether or not the sale is valid
-
-Held/Ratio- Yes. The sale is valid. - Art. 173 The wife may, during the
marriage, and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the
courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. Registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds constitutes a notice to the whole world. Since the deed of sale was registered on March 5, 1987, Christina Ayuste is presumed to have constructive notice of the sale from such date.
Villaranda vs. Spouses Villaranda G.R. No. 153447, Feb,23, 2004 - Facts:
- Land was left to Vicente Villaranda and Honorio Villaranda and their siblings by their parents. In 1976 Honorio and Vicente executed the deed of exchange where Vicente agreed to convey his 64.22- square-meter portion to Honorio, in exchange for a property in Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City. After the execution of the Deed, Honorio took possession of the 64.22-square-meter lot and constructed a building thereon.
- On April 6, 1992, a subdivision plan was completed, in pursuit of which TCT No. T- 65893 for the 64.22 square-meter share of Vicente was issued in his name.
- Honorio and Ana brought an action before the RTC to compel Vicente to comply with his obligations under the Deed of Exchange. They want Vicente to identify and delineate his undivided portion of the property and convey to them the 64.22- square-meter Divisoria lot, in compliance with his obligations under the Deed. - During the pendency of the case, Honorio
conditionally sold the Divisoria lot to Colorhouse Laboratories, Inc.
- Vicente contends that because the property had not been delivered, the Deed had not been consummated. Moreover, he claimed that the Deed had already been revoked by both parties.
- RTC: in favor of Honorio, contract valid - CA: upheld RTC
- The provisions of the Civil Code were applicable to the case at bar, since the Deed of Exchange had been entered into prior to the enactment of the Family Code. Thus, the absence of the wife‘s signature on the Deed made it only voidable,not void.
- The CA further found that Ana was aware of the execution of the Deed, and yet she brought no action for its annulment within ten (10) years from its execution.
-
Pertinent Issues: Whether there was a perfected and consummated deed of exchange
- Whether the Deed of Exchange which was not signed by the wife of Respondent Honorio G. Villaranda is valid and enforceable.
- Held/Ratio- Yes. The deed is valid. - The absence of the signature of Ana on
the Deed does not prove lack of her consent thereto, because a contract may validly exist even if the parties have not reduced their stipulations to writing. Too, assuming that her consent to the Deed is lacking, such fact would not render the agreement void, but merely voidable. - There is no evidence that any action to
annul the transfer made by Honorio was ever brought by Ana within ten years from "the transaction questioned." Her right to bring an action to invalidate the contract has thus prescribed. Hence, the assailed Deed is still valid and enforceable.
The legal prohibition against the disposition of conjugal property by one spouse without consent of the other has been established for the benefit, not of third persons, but only of the other spouse for whom the law desires to save the conjugal partnership from damages that might be caused. Not being the proper party, Vicente cannot avail himself of the remedy prescribed by Article 173.
Ainza vs.CA
- Facts:
- Antonio and Eugenia owned a lot with an unfinished residential house located in Quezon City. In April 1987Concepcion bought one-half of an undivided portion of the property from her daughter, Eugenia and the latter‘s husband, Antonio, for One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). - No Deed of Absolute Sale was executed to
evidence the transaction, but cash payment was received by the respondents, and ownership was transferred to Concepcion through physical delivery to her attorney-in-fact and daughter, Natividad Tuliao (Natividad). Concepcion authorized Natividad and the latter‘s husband, Ceferino Tuliao (Ceferino) to occupy the premises, and make improvements on the unfinished building. - Respondents caused the subdivision of
the property. Antonio said that he bought the property in 1980 and introduced improvements thereon. That he and his wife allowed Natividad and Ceferino to occupy the premises temporarily. Antonio requested Natividad to vacate the premises but the latter refused and claimed that Concepcion owned the property. Antonio filed an ejectment suit on April 1, 1999. Concepcion, represented also filed on May 4, 1999 a civil case for partition of real property and annulment of titles with damages.
- Antonio claimed that his wife, Eugenia, admitted that Concepcion offered to buy one third (1/3) of the property who gave her small amounts over several years which totaled P100,000.00 by 1987 and for which she signed a receipt.
- RTC: Sale is valid. In favor of Concepcion.( sale was consummated when both contracting parties complied with their respective obligations. Eugenia transferred possession by delivering the property to Concepcion who in turn paid the purchase price. )
- CA: sale is null and void. (Applying Article 124 of the Family Code, the Court of
Appeals ruled that since the subject property is conjugal, the written consent of Antonio must be obtained for the sale to be valid. )
- Pertinent Issue: whether there was a valid contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion
- Held/Ratio: - Sc: Valid.
- There was a perfected contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion. The records show that Eugenia offered to sell a portion of the property to Concepcion, who accepted the offer and agreed to pay P100,000.00 as consideration. The contract of sale was consummated when both parties fully complied with their respective obligations. Eugenia delivered the property to Concepcion, who in turn, paid Eugenia the price of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), as evidenced by the receipt .
- The oral contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion was evidenced by a receipt signed by Eugenia. Antonio also stated that his wife admitted to him that she sold the property to Concepcion. - The action to annul an oral contract must
be commenced within six years from the time the right of action accrued. No action was commenced by Antonio to annul the sale, hence his right to seek its annulment was extinguished by prescription.
- Under Art. 173 Antonio is still barred from instituting an action to annul the sale because since April 1987, more than ten (10) years had already lapsed without any such action being filed.
Antonio failed to exercise his right to ask for the annulment within the prescribed period, hence, he is now barred from questioning the validity of the sale between his wife and Concepcion.
Alinas vs. Alina (supra) FC 127, FC 100 cf. FC 239
FC128
Partosa-Jo v. CA 216 SCRA 693 FACTS:
- 1980, Prima Partosa-Jo filed two complaints against Jose Jo for a)judicial separation of conjugal property and b) complaint for support for her and their daughter Monina
- 29 Nov 1983: Negros Oriental RTC rendered judgment in favor of Prima but failed to include judgment on judicial separation of property in the dispositive portion
- Prima elevated this to CA, CA affirmed judgment on support but dismissed petition for separation of
property for lack merit saying that it was not allowed as their separation was due to their agreement rather and not because of abandonment ISSUES:
- W/N the decision of RTC can be questioned given that it is final and executory
- W/N she is entitled to judicial separation of conjugal property on the ground of abandonment
HELD/RATIO:
- The RTC failed put judgment on separation of property in the dispositive portion, BUT it was made in the penultimate paragraph reading as follows:
o ―…all the properties in question are considered properties of Jose Jo, the defendant is subject to separation of property…‖ - The RTC held that they were legally
married and that the properties were acquired during coverture although they were in the name of a dummy (Chinese national kasi)
- Prima submits that their agreement was not to be separated but for her to temporarily live with her parents during the initial period of her
pregnancy and that he would visit and support her. But when she returned to their house in Dumaguete in 1942, he refused to accept her.
- She is entitled to separation of property on ground of abandonment. - Abandonment implies departure of
one spouse with intent never to return, followed by prolonged absence without just cause and without providing for means although able to do so. There must be absolute cessation of marital relations, duties and rights, with the intention of perpetual separation. The physical separation of the parties, coupled by the refusalm by Jose Jo to give support to Prima, sufficed to constitute abandonment as a ground for legal separation of their conjugal property. Aside from this, he admittedly cohabitated with other women and have not established just cause for his refusal to comply with his duties as husband.
- Court ordered for division between the two hal/half. It should include properties such as those which were registered in the name of other persons in violation of the anti-dummy law.
“The past has caught up with the private respondent. After his extramarital flings and a succession of illegitimate children, he must now make an accounting to his lawful wife of the properties he denied her despite his promise to her of his eternal love and care.‖ FC 126 (10
FC 63 (2), FC 66
FC 50 in rd. To FC 43 (2) FC 134-138
FC129
Metropolitan Bank vs Pascual GR No. 163744, Feb. 29, 2008 FACTS:
- Nicholson Pascual m. Florencia Nevalga on 19Jan1985. During the union, they bought a 250-square meter lot in Makati from Clarito and Belen Sering.
- In 1994, Florencia filed a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psycholohical incapacity. 31July1995, RTC ordered dissolution and liquidation of ex- spouses‘ conjugal partnership of gains, however, they failed to liquidate it.
- 30April1997, Florencia, with Norberto and Elvira Oliveros obtained a 58 Million Peso loan from Metrobank. To secure obligation, they mortgaged their properties, including the lot in Makati. Florencia gave Metrobank a
copy of the RTC decision and a waiver allegedly executed on 9Apr1995 by Nicholson in favor of Florencia covering conjugal properties that were listed therein but did not include the Makati property.
- They failed to pay their obligation so Metrobank initiated foreclosure proceedings and at the auction sale emerged as the highest bidder. - 28June2000, Nicholson filed for nullity
of marriage alleging that the property was conjugal and was mortgaged without his consent
- RTC declared the mortgages invalid and ordered Metrobank and Florencia to pay Nicholson P100,000.00 moral damages and P75,000.00 attorney‘s fees.
- CA affirmed with modification, deleting the fees imposed
ISSUE/S:
- W/N the property is conjugal - W/N the Mortgage was valid HELD:
- The disputed property is conjugal. - Metrobank virtually recognized the
conjugal nature of the property when it refered to them as ―spouses‖, ―co- mortgagor‖ in a)the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure b) published notice for foreclosure and c) demand letter to vacate premises of the property.
- Contrarty to Metrobank‘s submission, the matter of the use of conjugal funds as an essential requirement for the presumption of conjugal ownership to arise is WRONG. only proof acquisition during the marriage is needed to raise presumption.
- The declaration of nullity of marriage, without more, does not
automatically result in the regime of complete separation when it is shown that there was no liquidation of the conjugal assets.
- While the declaration of nullity severed the marital bond and dissolved conjugal partnership, the character of the properties acquired continues to subsist as conjugal property until and after the liquidation and partition of the partnership.
- Pending its liquidation, the CPG is converted into an implied ordinary co- ownership. What governs the property relation is Art 493 which says the effect of the alienation or the mortgage… shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
- Florencia has the right to mortgage ½ undivided interest without consent Mortgage is valid insofar as the share of Florencia is concerned. FC 129 FC 129; FC 43(2) FC 63(2) FC 130 (cf. FC 104) FC131 FC132 Santero v. CFI 153 SCRA 728 Facts:
Private respondents are requesting for a Motion for Allowance from the estate of deceased Pablo Pascual (legitimate father of private respondents) which was granted by the CFI.
Petitioners (also legitimate children of Pascual with another woman) oppose the motion on the grounds that most of the private respondents are already of age.
NOTE: neither of the women are legally married to Pablo Pascual.
Issue:
W/N court acted with grave abuse of discretion by granting the motion for allowance.
Held: NO Ratio:
Petition lacks merit.
Art. 290 (support for children can apply even beyond the age of majority) and 188 (right to allowance) apply. It doesn‘t matter if they are of age, gainfully employed and married. The New Civil Code entitles the children to allowance as advances of their shares in the inheritance from their father, Pablo. A substantive right cannot be impaired by a procedural one (Rule 83, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court)
FC 143-146 FC 103 &FC 130 FC 66(2) FC144 FC145 FC 142 FC 146 FC 87, NCC 1490 FC 134 Maquilan vs Maquilan
June 8, 2007 Facts:
Spouses Maquilan were happily married until Virgilio discovered that Dita was having an affair.
He filed a complaint for adultery in which Dita and her paramour were found guilty.
June 15 2001: Private respondent filed a P e t i t i o n f o r D e c l a r a t i o n o f N u l l i t y o f M a r r i a g e , D i s s o l u t i o n a n d L i q u i d a t i o n o f C o n j u g a l P a r t n e r s h i p o f G a i n s a n d D a m a g e s . D u r i n g p r e - t r i a l o f c a s e , s p o u s e s c r e a t e d a C O M P R O M I S E A G R E E M E N T.
This is with regard to some particular properties that they either decided to divide between them or give to their common child, Neil.
Compromise agreement was given judicial imprimatur by respondent RTC Judge.
Jan. 15, 2002: Petitioner files an Omnibus Motion saying that his lawyer did not ―intelligently and judiciously apprise him of the consequential effects of the Agreement.‖ Respondent Judge denied Motion.
Aug. 30, 2002: CA also dismissed petition for lack of merit.
The conviction of the crime of adultery of Dita does not ipso facto disqualify her from sharing in the conjugal property.
She was only sentenced with the penalty of prision correccional, without civil interdiction, which would have deprived her of the right to manage her property.
Since petition for declaration of nullity was not yet decided, it would be premature to apply Art. 43 and 63 of FC (re: effects of nullified marriage or LS)
The spouses also VOLUNTARILY agreed to a separation of their property which was
approved of by law, in accordance with FC 134. It is the petitioner and his lawyer‘s fault for not checking nor objecting to this right away before it was approved of.
Main Issue: