6 Gls Civil Law Review I Family Code PPP 6 Property Relations Part 1 Updated 14 October 2022
6 Gls Civil Law Review I Family Code PPP 6 Property Relations Part 1 Updated 14 October 2022
6 Gls Civil Law Review I Family Code PPP 6 Property Relations Part 1 Updated 14 October 2022
Reason:
in the absence of marriage settlement, absolute community governs
where donation is useless.
The “more than 1/5” limitation does not apply.
Reason:
the danger of undue interference is remote, since
donation made unilaterally in a separate document
where no negotiation is required unlike in marriage
settlement where parties negotiate.
Ifthe marriage does not take place, donation is merely
revocable (Article 86)
Article 86 – Instances where donation by reason of
marriage may be revoked:
A) If the marriage is not celebrated or judicially declared void
ab initio, except donations made in the marriage settlement,
which is void under Article 81
- prescriptive period is five (5) years from the time the right
of action accrues (the date of marriage was supposed to be
solemnized) pursuant to Article 1149 of the Civil Code
i. If a subsequent marriage is void pursuant to Article 40
in relation to Articles 52 & 53, the donation shall be
revoked by operation of law when done acted in bad
faith, in accordance with Article 50, in relation to
Article 43 (3)
- If done does not want to return the property donated,
the donor shall file an action to recover and his/her
right of action accrues from finality of the court
decision declaring nullity of the marriage, subject to
the following prescriptive periods:
(a) If the donation involves personal property – eight
(8) years (Article 1140, Civil Code)
RULE:
(A) Acts of administration
Both spouses shall jointly administer/joint administration. But in case of
disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to the recourse of
the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five
years from the date of the contract implementing such decision (Article 96,
first paragraph)
The wife’s cause of action is rescission on the ground that the transaction
entered into by the husband is prejudicial or caused injury to the ACP
(lesion)
In the event one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the common
properties, the other spouse may assume sole power of
administration, but such power of administration does not
include the power of disposition or encumbrance (Article
96, first paragraph).
(B) Acts of ownership, disposition or encumbrance
Any sale, encumbrance, alienation or disposition made by
one spouse without the consent of the other or without the
written authority of the court is void (Second paragraph
of Article 96; Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda
Guiang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.125172, 26 June
1998; Manuel Fuentes and Letecia Fuentes vs.
Conrado Roca, et. al. G.R. No.178902, 21 April 2010).
While the sale, encumbrance, alienation and disposition is
void, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing
offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third
person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the
court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both
offerors (Article 96, second paragraph)
When the other spouse or the court eventually gives the
consent or authorization, the previous transaction is not
ratified since a void contract cannot be ratified. What
happens is that there will now be meeting of the minds
since the void transaction is a continuing offer, thereby
resulting in the perfection of the contract. The effect of
the eventual consent or court authority does not retroact
to the time of the initial transaction.
The court approval is only required if the other spouse is unable to
participate in the acts of disposition or encumbrance, such as when
one spouse is absent, or separated in fact, or has abandoned the
other, or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. Where such
spouse is incapacitated or incompetent, the required consent must
be obtained from the latter’s guardian appointed by the court (Uy
vs. Jardeleza, 346 SCRA 246; Jardeleza vs. Jardeleza, 347 SCRA
210; Thelma Manalo vs. Norma Fernandez and Edilberto
Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978, 23 January 2002).
The entire transaction is void. The interest of either
spouse to the property belonging to the ACP is only
inchoate, which can only ripen upon liquidation. While
ACP is a special kind of co-ownership, Article 493 –
which allows any co-owner to sell or otherwise dispose of
his or her undivided share in the co-owned property –
does not apply.
EXCEPTIONS:
(A) Where the sale or disposition was made by either spouse
for hospitalization and medical expenses, and the other
spouse unreasonably withheld his/her consent, the sale is
valid insofar as the share of the consenting spouse. Hospital
and medical expenses for either or both spouses are
chargeable against the CPG (Estela Costuna vs. Laureana
Domondon, G.R. No.82753, 19 December 1989).
(b)Either spouse may dispose of his/her share/interest in the
community property if the disposition is in the nature of
a disposition mortis causa and made in a will, because it
is to take effect upon death, at which time the
community property will have been terminated. Hence,
the prohibition no longer applies (Articles 97 and 99(1).
(c) The court did not declare void the entire disposition of a
conjugal property despite absence of consent of one of
the spouses because of the subsequent death of the
consenting/disposing spouse. Applying justice and
equity, since the conjugal partnership was already
terminated upon the death, there is no need to
invalidate the share of the disposing deceased spouse
(Spouses Julieta and Fernando Carlos vs. Juan
Cruz Tolentino, G.R. No.234533, 27 June 2018)
Dissolution of Absolute Community Property
Regime
PROCEDURE:
(1) Inventory of the common and separate properties
(2) Payment of all community debts and obligations. In case of insufficiency, each
spouse shall be solidarilly liable with their respective separate properties
Whatever remains of the exclusive/separate properties shall be delivered to
each of the spouses-owner
The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute
its net assets, which shall be divided equally between spouses, unless a different
sharing scheme is agreed upon in the marriage settlement
CONCEPT OF NET PROFITS:
For purpose of computing the “net profits” subject to
forfeiture in accordance with articles 43 (2) and 63 (2),
the said profits shall be the increase in value between the
market value of the community property at the time of the
celebration of the marriage and at the time of dissolution.
While what is forfeited is only the share of the guilty
spouse in the “net profits”, not the share in the capital
asset, nothing will be returned to the guilty party upon
liquidation (whether under ACP or CPG) where there is
no separate property which may be accounted for in the
guilty party’s favor (Brigido Quiao vs. Rita c. Quiao,
G.R. No. 176556, 4 July 2012).
(3) Delivery of presumptive legitimes to the common children upon partition
(4) Unless otherwise agreed upon in the partition of properties, the conjugal
dwelling and the lot shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the
majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below seven
(7) are deemed to have chosen the wife, unless the court shall decide. In
case there is no majority, the court shall decide taking into consideration
the best interest of the children.
NOTE:
The rule on the disposition of the family dwelling under Article 102
applies only if the property regime that existed in the marriage
before its dissolution is either ACP or CPG.
Thus, when the marriage is dissolved by judicial declaration of
nullity, the rule under Article 102 does not apply, since the property
regime that existed in a void marriage is neither ACP nor CPG, but
co-ownership under Articles 147 and 148.
Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, the properties owned
in common, including the family home, may be
partitioned by agreement between the parties or by
judicial proceedings. It is not necessary to liquidate the
properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for
declaration of nullity of marriage
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) Marriage declared void under Article 40; and
(b) Marriage declared annulled under Article 45.
(Antonio Valdez vs. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
G.R. No.122749, 31 JULY 1996; Alain Diño vs. Ma.
Caridad Diño, G.R. No.178044, 19 January 2011; Salas vs.
Aguila, G.R. No.202370, 3 September 2003; Barrido vs.
Nonato, G.R. No.G.R. No.176492, 20 October 2014)
Article 103
If marriage is terminated by death, the community of property shall be
liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall
liquidate it, either judicially or extrajudicially within one (1) year from death.
Effects if no liquidation is made within one (1) year from death
Any disposition is void.
EXCEPTION:
Where the sale does not affect the share adjudicated to the other heirs after
liquidation, the sale is valid affecting only the share of the selling co-owner
(Heirs of Protacio Go vs. Esther Servacio, G.R. No.157537, 7 September
2011; Rafael Uy vs. Estate of Vipa Fernandez, G.R. No.200612, 05 April
2017).
REASON: