qanda.docx

7/21/2019 qanda.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/qandadocx 1/4

1. A and B contracted marriage in 1977. They had no separate properties prior to theirmarriage. During the course of said marriage, they had four children. In 2000, A filed acomplaint against B for legal separation for cohaiting !ith another !oman. "use#uently,the $T% rendered a decision in 200& declaring the legal separation. The properties accruedy the spouses shall e di'ided e#ually et!een them su(ect to the respecti'e legitimes oftheir children) ho!e'er, B*s share of the net profits earned y the con(ugal partnership shalle forfeited in fa'or of their children in accordance to par. 9 of Article 129 of the +%.A fe!months thereafter, A filed a motion for eecution, !hich !as granted y the trial court. By

200-, B paid A !ith regards to the earlier decision) the !rit !as partially eecuted. Aftermore than 9 months later, B filed a motion for clarification asing the $T% to define /etsrofits arned.3 In ans!er, the court held that the phrase denotes /the remainder of theproperties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each of the spouses anddets.3 4pon a motion for reconsideration, it initially set aside its pre'ious decision statingthat T $5+IT A$D shall e computed in accordance !ith par. 6 of Article 102 of the+%. o!e'er, it later re'erted to its original 5rder. Is the regime of con(ugal partnership ofgains go'erns the couple*s property relations.

A"8$ :es. "ince at the time of echange of martial 'o!s, the operati'e la! !as the %%and since they did not agree on a marriage settlement, the property relations et!een them

is the system of relati'e community or the con(ugal partnership of gains. 4nder this propertyrelation, /the husand and !ife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate propertyand the income from their !or and industry. The husand and !ife also o!n in common allthe property of the con(ugal partnership of gains. Quiao v. Quiao, G.R. No. 183622, July 4,2012

2. B mortgaged a residential lot !hich his !ife, A inherited to the ;"I" to secure a housingloan. Thereafter, they used the money loaned to construct a residential house on said lot. Itis alleged that % granted the spouses a loan !hich the latter used to pay the det to ;"I".The alance of the loan !ill e deli'ered upon surrender of the title o'er the property and

an affida'it of !ai'er of rights <o'er the property= to e eecuted y the husand. 8hile thespouses !ere ale to turn o'er the title, no affida'it !as signed y the B. %onse#uently, %refused to gi'e the alance of the loan and since the spouses could no longer return theamount !hich !as already paid to ;"I", % ept the title o'er the property and suse#uently,caused the issuance of a ne! one in his o!n name.

The spouses then filed a case for the annulment of the purported sale of the property infa'or of %. The $T% ruled that the property !as the !ife*s eclusi'e paraphernal propertyand as such, the sale is 'alid e'en !ithout the husand*s consent. The %A re'ersed and ruledthat !hile the property !as originally eclusi'e paraphernal property of the !ife, it ecamecon(ugal property !hen it !as used as collateral for a housing loan that !as paid through

con(ugal funds. ence, the sale is 'oid. Is the property paraphernal or con(ugal>

A"8$ It is paraphernal, as a general rule, all property ac#uired during the marriage,!hether the ac#uisition appears to ha'e een made, contracted or registered in the name ofone or oth spouses, is presumed to e con(ugal unless the contrary is pro'ed. In the presentcase, clear e'idence that A inherited the residential lot from her father has sufficientlyreutted this presumption of con(ugal o!nership pursuant to Articles 92 and 109 of the+amily %ode. The residential lot, therefore, is A*s eclusi'e paraphernal property. Article 120of the +amily %ode, !hich supersedes Article 1&? of the %i'il %ode, pro'ides the solution indetermining the o!nership of the impro'ements that are made on the separate property of



the spouses, at the epense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either oroth spouses. 8hen the 'alue of the paraphernal property is consideraly more than thecon(ugal impro'ement, said paraphernal property does not ecome con(ugal property.

Munoz v. Ramirez G.R. No. 156125, Augu! 25, 2010

@. A !ho !as married to Botained a loan from %. As a security for the payment of the saidloan, A eecuted a Deed of $eal state ortgage in fa'our of % on their residential lot inariina. o!e'er, A also eecuted a Deed 5f asolute sale in fa'or of D o'er the same

property ecause of A*s failure to pay her oligation from . D also mortgaged the sameproperty to BD5 to secure a loan from the an. A, together !ith her son +, filed against Dpraying for the annulment of the said deed of sale. "he claims that the said property !ascon(ugal property and !as sold !ithout the consent of his husand !ho already died y thattime. "he also in'oes the presumption of %on(ugality under Art. 1-0 of the %i'il %ode. The$T% ruled in fa'or of A and upheld the presumption of con(ugality. The %A ruled other!ise. Isthe said property that !as sold is part of the %on(ugal artnership >

AN"#$R% o it is eclusi'e. The presumption mentioned in the Art. 1-0 of the %i'il %odeapplies only for the property ac#uired during marriage and does not operate !hen there isno sho!ing as to !hen the property !as ac#uired. oreo'er, the presumption in fa'or of the

con(ugality is reuttale, ut only !ith strong, clear and con'incing proof of eclusi'eo!nership.Because it is lie!ise possile that the property !as ac#uired y the !ife !hile she !as stillsingle and registered only after her marriage, neither !ould registration thereof in saidmanner constitute proof that the same !as ac#uired during the marriage and, for saidreason, to e presumed con(ugal in nature. AD, since there is no sho!ing as to !hen theproperty in #uestion !as ac#uired, the fact that the title is in the name of the !ife alone isdeterminati'e of its nature as paraphernal, i.e., elonging eclusi'ely to said spouse.

6. A pre'iously otained a loan from B and as security) a real estate mortgage o'er a parceof land !as eecuted. 4pon maturity, the loan remained unpaid and an etra(udiciaforeclosure proceeding on the mortgaged property !as instituted y B. After the lapse ofa year, the property !as consolidated and registered in the name of B.B, the !ife of A claiming she had no no!ledge of the said loan nor the mortgage constitutedon the land !hich is part of their con(ugal property, contested the transactions and filed foran annulment of the proceedings. "he interposed in her defense that the signatures affiedon the documents !ere forged and that the proceeds of the loan did not redound to theenefit of the family. $T% ruled for the spouses, stating that may during their marriage and!ithin ten years from the transaction mentioned, may as the court for an annulment of thecase. %A re'ersed this ruling and found for B, stating that forgery !as concluded !ithout

ade#uate proof. It also found that the loan !as used in the epansion of the family usiness.o! is the enefit to the family pro'en so as to render the loan contracted y the husandinding upon the con(ugal property>

AN"#$R% If the husand himself is the principal oligor in the contract, that contract falls!ithin the term, /oligations for the enefit of the con(ugal partnership3.ere, no actual enefit may e pro'ed. It is enough that the enefit to the family isapparent at the signing of the contract. 8here the husand contracts oligations on ehalfof the family usiness, the la! presumes, and rightly so, that such oligation !ill redound tothe enefit of the con(ugal partnership.



• 5nas 's. a'illo, &9 hil 7@@

• Cda de Delio 's. Delio, -9 "%$A 21-

• $odrigue 's. Dela %ru, ? hil --&

• eople*s Ban and Trust %o. 's. $egister of Deeds, -0 hil 1-7

• hilippine "ugar 's. oiat, 6? hil &@-

• ocson 's. %A, 170 "%$A @@@

• +rancisco 's. %A, 299 "%$A 1??

• Eulueta 's. an Am, 69 "%$A 1

• endoa 's. $eyes, 126 "%$A 1&6

• DB 's. Adil, 1-1 "%$A @07

• Ayala In'estmen 's. %hing, 2?- "%$A 27@

• ;uiang 's. %A, 291 "%$A @72

• aderFanalo 's. %amaisa, 276 "%$A 69?

• "antero 's. %+I of %a'ite, 1&@ "%$A 72?

• artosaFo 's. %A, 21- "%$A -92

• Gacson 's. "an ose, 26 "%$A ?@7

• Agapatay 's. alang, 27- "%$A @60

• :aptinchay 's. Torres, 2? "%$A 6?9

• Cda de %onseguera 's. ;"I", 27 "%$A @1&

qanda.docx

Documents