1 | P a g e

Part III- LEGAL SEPARATION/ ANNULMENT/NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

Lapuz-Sy vs. Eufemio
43 SCRA 177
FACTS:
Carmen Lapuz-Sy fled a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio on August 1953. !ey
"ere married #i$illy on Septem%er &1' 193( and #anoni#ally after nine days. !ey !ad li$ed toget!er
as !us%and and "ife #ontinuously "it!out any #!ildren until 19(3 "!en !er !us%and a%andoned !er.
!ey a#)uired properties during t!eir marriage. Petitioner t!en dis#o$ered t!at !er !us%and #o!a%ited
"it! a C!inese "oman named *o +io, on or a%out 19(9. S!e prayed for t!e issuan#e of a de#ree of
legal separation' "!i#! among ot!ers' "ould order t!at t!e defendant Eufemio s!ould %e depri$ed of
!is s!are of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip profts.
Eufemio #ounter#laimed for t!e de#laration of nullity of !is marriage "it! Lapuz-Sy on t!e ground of
!is prior and su%sisting marriage "it! *o +io,. rial pro#eeded and t!e parties addu#ed t!eir
respe#ti$e e$iden#e. +o"e$er' %efore t!e trial #ould %e #ompleted' respondent already s#!eduled to
present surre%uttal e$iden#e' petitioner died in a $e!i#ular a##ident on .ay 19/9. +er #ounsel duly
notifed t!e #ourt of !er deat!. Eufemio mo$ed to dismiss t!e petition for legal separation on 0une
19/9 on t!e grounds t!at t!e said petition "as fled %eyond t!e one-year period pro$ided in Arti#le 11&
of t!e Ci$il Code and t!at t!e deat! of Carmen a%ated t!e a#tion for legal separation. Petitioner2s
#ounsel mo$ed to su%stitute t!e de#eased Carmen %y !er fat!er' .a#ario Lapuz.
ISSUE: Whether the death of the pa!"t!#$ %efore &"a de'ree !" a" a't!o" for e(a
)eparat!o"$ a%ate the a't!o" a"d *! !t a)o app+ !f the a't!o" !",o,ed propert+ r!(ht)-
.EL/:
An a#tion for legal separation is a%ated %y t!e deat! of t!e plainti3' e$en if property rig!ts are
in$ol$ed. !ese rig!ts are mere e3e#ts of de#ree of separation' t!eir sour#e %eing t!e de#ree itself4
"it!out t!e de#ree su#! rig!ts do not #ome into e5isten#e' so t!at %efore t!e fnality of a de#ree' t!ese
#laims are merely rig!ts in e5pe#tation. 6f deat! super$enes during t!e penden#y of t!e a#tion' no
de#ree #an %e fort!#oming' deat! produ#ing a more radi#al and defniti$e separation4 and t!e
e5pe#ted #onse)uential rig!ts and #laims "ould ne#essarily remain un%orn.
!e petition of Eufemio for de#laration of nullity is moot and a#ademi# and t!ere #ould %e no furt!er
interest in #ontinuing t!e same after !er demise' t!at automati#ally dissol$ed t!e )uestioned union.
Any property rig!ts a#)uired %y eit!er party as a result of Arti#le 1(( of t!e Ci$il Code of t!e
P!ilippines / #ould %e resol$ed and determined in a proper a#tion for partition %y eit!er t!e appellee or
%y t!e !eirs of t!e appellant.
7777777
Le(a )eparat!o" ao"e !) "ot a (ro0"d for *!fe1) 'ha"(e of "a2e- A *o2a"3) 2arr!ed
)tat0) !) "ot a#e'ted %+ a de'ree of e(a )eparat!o"$ there %e!"( "o )e,era"'e of the
,!"'002$ a"d 0"der Art!'e 456 of the Ne* C!,! Code$ )he 20)t 'o"t!"0e 0)!"( the "a2e
a"d )0r"a2e e2po+ed %+ her %efore the )eparat!o"-
7 6t is dou%tful "!et!er 8ule 113 of t!e 8ules of Court' "!i#! refers to #!ange of name in general' may
pre$ail o$er t!e spe#if# pro$isions of Arti#le 39& of t!e :e" Ci$il Code "it! regard to married "omen
legally separated from t!eir !us%ands. E$en' !o"e$er' applying 8ule 113' t!e fa#t of legal separation
alone is not su;#ient ground to -ustify a #!ange of name' %e#ause to !old ot!er"ise' "ould %e to
pro$ide an easy #ir#um$ention of t!e mandatory pro$isions of said Arti#le 39&.
Fa't)< 6n 195=' petitioner Elisea L. Santamaria "as de#reed legally separated from !er !us%and
Enri)ue 8. Santamaria. 6n 19/1' s!e fled a petition to %e allo"ed to #!ange !er name and>or %e
permitted to resume using !er maiden name Elisea Laperal. !e City Attorney of ?aguio opposed t!e
petition on t!e ground t!at t!e same $iolates t!e pro$isions of Arti#le 391 @s!ould %e 39&A of t!e Ci$il
Code' and t!at it is not san#tioned %y t!e 8ules of Court.
!e #ourt denied t!e petition. Bpon petitionerCs motion' !o"e$er' t!e #ourt' treating t!e petition as
one for #!ange of name' re#onsidered its de#ision and granted t!e petition on t!e ground t!at to allo"
petitioner' "!o is a %usiness"oman de#reed legally separated from !er !us%and' to #ontinue using !er
married name "ould gi$e rise to #onfusion in !er fnan#es and t!e e$entual li)uidation of t!e #on-ugal
assets. +en#e' t!is appeal %y t!e State-
I))0e):
Sho0d pet!t!o"er %e ao*ed to 'ha"(e her "a2e or %e per2!tted to re)02e 0)!"( her
2a!de" "a2e8
& | P a g e
.ed:
No- Arti#le 39& of t!e Ci$il Code reads<
A8. 39&. D!en legal separation !as %een granted' t!e "ife s!all #ontinue using !er name and
surname employed %efore t!e legal separation.
!e language of t!e statute is mandatory t!at t!e "ife' e$en after t!e legal separation !as %een
de#reed' s!all #ontinue using !er name and surname employed %efore t!e legal separation. !is is so
%e#ause !er married status is una3e#ted %y t!e separation' t!ere %eing no se$eran#e of t!e $in#ulum.
6t seems to %e t!e poli#y of t!e la" t!at t!e "ife s!ould #ontinue to use t!e name indi#ati$e of !er
un#!anged status for t!e %eneft of all #on#erned.
E$en applying 8ule 113' t!e fa#t of legal separation alone E "!i#! is t!e only %asis for t!e petition E
is' not a su;#ient ground to -ustify a #!ange of t!e name of petitioner' for to !old ot!er"ise "ould %e
to pro$ide an easy #ir#um$ention of t!e mandatory pro$isions of Arti#le 39&.
!e fnding t!at petitioner2s #ontinued use of !er !us%and surname may #ause undue #onfusion in !er
fnan#es "as "it!out %asis. 6t must %e #onsidered t!at t!e issuan#e of t!e de#ree of legal separation
in 195=' ne#essitate t!at t!e #on-ugal partners!ip %et"een !er and Enri)ue !ad automati#ally %een
dissol$ed and li)uidated. +en#e' t!ere #ould %e no more o##asion for an e$entual li)uidation of t!e
#on-ugal assets. (Laperal vs Republic, R !o. L-1"##", $c%ober 3#, 1&'().
999999999999
Ma+ a 2arr!ed *o2a" re,ert to 0)e of 2a!de" "a2e !" pa))port d0r!"( )0%)!)te"'e of
2arr!a(e
Fa't):
Firgie ?. .ora is married to Gran#is#o 8. 8allonza. 6n !er passport' t!e follo"ing entries appeared<
H8allonzaI as !er surname' H.aria FirginiaI as !er gi$en name' and H8emoI as !er middle name. S!e
applied for t!e rene"al of !er passport "it! t!e Jepartment of Goreign A3airs @JGAA o;#e in C!i#ago'
6llinois' BSA "it! a re)uest to re$ert to !er maiden name and surname @Firgie ?. .oraA in t!e
repla#ement passport. !e JGA denied t!e re)uest.

R0!"(:
8A =&39' t!e P!ilippine Passport A#t of 199/' and its implementing rules and regulations do not
pro!i%it a married "oman from using !er maiden name in !er passport. !e JGA in fa#t allo"s a
married "oman "!o applies for a passport for t!e frst time to use !er maiden name. 6n t!e #ase of
rene"al of passport' a married "oman may eit!er adopt !er !us%and2s surname or #ontinuously use
!er maiden name. +o"e$er' on#e a married "oman opts to adopt !er !us%and2s surname in !er
passport' s!e may not re$ert to t!e use of !er maiden name e5#ept in #ases of< @1A deat! of !us%and'
@&A di$or#e' @3A annulment' or @(A de#laration of nullity of marriage. Sin#e Firgie2s marriage to !er
!us%and su%sists' s!e may not resume !er maiden name in t!e repla#ement passport :Re2o ,)-
Se'retar+ of Fore!(" A#a!r)$ G-R- ;<=6>6$ Mar'h ?$ 6>;>@-
999999
I 'a""ot &"d Peope ,) S'he*eAe"%0r(er
999999
F!!p!"a W!fe No Lo"(er G0!t+ of Ad0ter+
Ca)e: Peope ,) Sa")a"o a"d Ra2o) ?= Ph!- 54
Fa't) of the Ca)e: A and ?' !us%and and "ife' respe#ti$ely' "ere legally married. Later' ? a%andoned
A. ? Li$ed "it! C. A did not!ing to interfere "it! t!e relations of !is "ife and !er paramour. +e e$ent
"ent to +a"aii' #ompletely a%andoning !is "ife ? for more t!an se$en years. Later' A returned and
#!arged ? and C "it! adultery.
I))0e: I) B (0!t+ of ad0ter+8
/e'!)!o" of the S0pre2e Co0rt: ? s!ould %e a#)uitted %e#ause ACs #ondu#t "arranted t!e
inferen#e t!at in trut!' as "ell as in fa#t' !e !ad #onsented to t!e p!ilandering of !is "ife.
77777777777777777777
FC$ ?<. !e petition for legal separation s!all %e denied on any of t!e follo"ing grounds<
@1A D!ere t!e aggrie$ed party !as #ondoned t!e o3ense or a#t #omplained of4
@&A D!ere t!e aggrie$ed party !as #onsented to t!e #ommission of t!e o3ense or a#t #omplained of4
@3A D!ere t!ere is #onni$an#e %et"een t!e parties in t!e #ommission of t!e o3ense or a#t #onstituting
t!e ground for legal separation4
@(A D!ere %ot! parties !a$e gi$en ground for legal separation4
@5A D!ere t!ere is #ollusion %et"een t!e parties to o%tain de#ree of legal separation4 or
@/A D!ere t!e a#tion is %arred %y pres#ription.
3 | P a g e
Peope ,- Sa")a"o a"d Ra2o)
Facts< Fentura left Sansano for 3 years "it!out "riting to !er or sending support. Sansano %egan to
li$e "it! 8amos. D!en Fentura returned' !e fled adultery #!arges against Sansano and 8amos. ?ot!
"ere #on$i#ted. After ser$ing senten#e Sansano as,ed Fentura to ta,e !er %a#, %ut !e told !er to do
"!at s!e "anted. S!e again li$ed "it! 8amos. Fentura "ent a%road for 9 years. D!en !e returned to
t!e P!ilippines' !e fled a se#ond #!arge of adultery and fled a #ase for legal separation. Held< Fentura
#onsented to t!e adulterous relations of !is "ife. +e is t!erefore %arred from instituting a #ase for
adultery. !e sole purpose of fling t!e #!arge is to use it as a ground for legal separation.
777777777777
Be"ed!'to ,)- /ea Ra2a
Fa't):
1.K: 0uly 5' 191&' t!e CG6 entered a fnal -udgment de#reeing a di$or#e to t!e plainti3 @Agueda
?enedi#ta dela 8amaA on t!e ground of !us%and2s adultery and ordered Este%an Jela 8ama to pay
!er P=1'1(&.9/ due !er as !er unpaid s!are of t!e property %elonging to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' as
"ell as t!e sum of P3'&11 as an allo"an#e for t!eir support.
I))0e: Whether the CFI ha) C0r!)d!'t!o" to hear d!,or'e 'a)e)8
R0!"(:
!e partidas re#ognized adultery as a ground for di$or#e. !erefore' a##ording to t!e #i$il as "ell
as t!e #anoni#al la" in for#e !ere on August 13' 1=9=' t!e #ommission of t!at o3ense ga$e t!e in-ured
party t!e rig!t to a di$or#e. !at pro$ision of t!e su%stanti$e #i$il la" "as not repealed %y t!e #!ange
of so$ereignty. !e #omplete separation under t!e Ameri#an *o$ernment of #!ur#! and state' "!ile it
#!anged t!e tri%unal in "!i#! t!is rig!t s!ould %e enfor#ed' #ould not a3e#t t!e rig!t itself. !e fa#t
t!at t!e e##lesiasti#al #ourts no longer e5er#ise su#! po"er is not important. !e -urisdi#tion formerly
possessed %y t!em is no" $ested in Courts of Girst 6nstan#e' %y $irtue of A#t :o. 13/. Se#tion 5/' frst
and fft! paragrap!s of t!at a#t' pro$ides t!at LCourts of Girst 6nstan#e s!all !a$e original -urisdi#tion'
frst' in all #i$il a#tions in "!i#! t!e su%-e#t of litigation is not #apa%le of pe#uniary estimation4 fft!' . . .
and in all su#! spe#ial #ases and pro#eedings as are not ot!er"ise pro$ided for.L !e result is
@1A t!at Courts of Girst instan#e !a$e -urisdi#tion to entertain a suit for di$or#e4
@&A t!at t!e only ground t!erefore is adultery4
@3A t!at an a#tion on t!at ground #an %e maintained %y t!e !us%and against t!e "ife' or %y t!e "ife
against t!e !us%and4 and
@(A t!at t!e de#ree does not dissol$e t!e marriage %ond. !e Court of Girst 6nstan#e of 6loilo' t!erefore'
#ommitted no error in assuming -urisdi#tion of t!is #ase.
@&A A motion for a ne" trial !a$ing %een made in t!e #ourt %elo" on t!e ground t!at t!e fndings of
fa#t #ontained in t!e de#ision "ere not -ustifed %y t!e e$iden#e' it %e#omes ne#essary to e5amine
t!at e$iden#e. !e adultery of t!e defendant "as duly pro$ed. !e fnding t!at t!e plainti3 !ad not
#ommitted adultery is' !o"e$er' plainly and manifestly against t!e "eig!t of t!e e$iden#e. Gor t!e sin
of ea#! one of t!em is of itself a %ar to an a##usation against t!e ot!er. Kur #on#lusion is t!at neit!er
one of t!e parties is entitled to a di$or#e. !e result ma,es it unne#essary to #onsider t!at part of t!e
-udgment "!i#! relates to t!e settlement of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.
777777777777777
Bro*" ,- Ya2%ao
*ac%s:
?ro"n fled for legal separation on t!e ground t!at Mam%ao %egot a #!ild from an adulterous
relations!ip. Mam%ao failed to su%mit ans"er on time. Juring #ross-e5amination' it "as re$ealed t!at
?ro"n also li$ed "it! anot!er "oman "it! "!om !e !as %egotten #!ildren.
+el,:
Legal separation #annot %e #laimed "!ere %ot! spouses are o3enders. Kne must #ome to #ourt "it!
#lean !ands. .oreo$er' failure of "ife to raise a defense may %e #onsidered #ir#umstantial e$iden#e of
#ollusion %et"een !er and !er !us%and. Lastly' t!e CC' a#tion for legal separation s!ould %e fled
"it!in one year from t!e time t!e time t!e plainti3 %e#omes #ognizant of t!e #ause and "it!in f$e
years from and after t!e date "!en su#! #ause o##urred. NBnder GC' an a#tion for legal separation
s!all %e fled "it!in f$e years from t!e time of t!e o##urren#e of t!e #ause.O
777777777
Mat0%!) ,- PraDede)
Fa't):
Petitioner and respondent agreed to separate. Petitioner fled a #omplaint for legal separation and
#!ange of surname. 6n 0anuary 1955' respondent %egun #o!a%itating "it! anot!er. Petitioner instituted
t!e #omplaint in April 195/.
I))0e):
1. D!et!er or not t!e a#tion !ad not yet pres#ri%ed.
( | P a g e
&. Assuming it !ad not yet pres#ri%ed' DK: t!e agreement amounts to #onsent pre#luding t!e a#tion
for legal separation.
.ed:
1. :o' it already pres#ri%ed.
Arti#le 11& of t!e ne" Ci$il Code pro$ides<
An a#tion for legal separation #annot %e fled e5#ept "it!in one year from and after t!e date on "!i#!
t!e plainti3 %e#ame #ognizant of t!e #ause and "it!in f$e years from after t!e date "!en #ause
o##urred.
&. Mes' t!ere "as already an e5press #onsent.
!e #ondonation and #onsent !ere are not only implied %ut e5pressed. !e la" @Art. 111 Ci$il CodeA'
spe#if#ally pro$ides t!at legal separation may %e #laimed only %y t!e inno#ent spouse' pro$ided t!ere
!as %een no #ondonation of or #onsent to t!e adultery or #on#u%inage. +a$ing #ondoned and>or
#onsented in "riting' t!e plainti3 is no" undeser$ing of t!e #ourtCs sympat!y @People $s.
S#!ene#,en%urger' 93 P!il.' (13A.
7777777777
-ime.ez vs. Ca.izares
L-1(7&#, Au/us% 31, 1&'#
FACTS:
0oel 0imenez' t!e petitioner' fled a petition for t!e annulment of !is marriage "it! 8emedios Canizares
on t!e ground t!at t!e orif#e of !er genitals or $agina "as too small to allo" t!e penetration of a male
organ for #opulation. 6t !as e5isted at t!e time of t!e marriage and #ontinues to e5ist t!at led !im to
lea$e t!e #on-ugal !ome t"o nig!ts and one day after t!e marriage. !e #ourt summoned and ga$e a
#opy to t!e "ife %ut t!e latter did not fle any ans"er. !e "ife "as ordered to su%mit !erself to
p!ysi#al e5amination and to fle a medi#al #ertif#ate "it!in 11 days. S!e "as gi$en anot!er 5 days to
#omply or else it "ill %e deemed la#, of interest on !er part and t!erefore rendering -udgment in fa$or
of t!e petitioner.
ISSUE: D!et!er or not t!e marriage #an %e annulled "it! only t!e testimony of t!e !us%and.
.EL/:
!e "ife "!o "as #laimed to %e impotent %y !er !us%and did not a$ail of t!e opportunity to defend
!erself and as su#!' #laim #annot %e #on$in#ingly %e #on#luded. 6t is a "ell-,no"n fa#t t!at "omen in
t!is #ountry are s!y and %as!ful and "ould not readily and un!esitatingly su%mit to a p!ysi#al
e5amination unless #ompelled %y #ompetent aut!ority. Su#! p!ysi#al e5amination in t!is #ase is not
self-in#riminating. S!e is not #!arged "it! any o3ense and li,e"ise is not #ompelled to %e a "itness
against !erself. 6mpoten#e %eing an a%normal #ondition s!ould not %e presumed. !e #ase "as
remanded to trial #ourt.
77777777777777
La')o" ,- Sa" Eo)e
*ac%s:
!e spouses !a$e %een separated in fa#t for more t!an 5 years. !ey !ad an ami#a%le settlement
"!erein t!ey agree to dissol$e t!eir CP* su%-e#t to -udi#ial appro$al.
+el,:
!e propriety of t!e dissolution of t!e CP* is manifest. !e spouses !a$e !ad a lengt!y separation.
Separation of property %et"een t!e spouses P t!e dissolution of t!e CP sin#e is allo"ed %y la"
pro$ided -udi#ial san#tion is se#ured %efore!and. Su#! appro$al "as o%tained P it doesn2t appear t!at
t!ey !a$e #reditors "!o "ill %e pre-udi#ed %y t!e arrangements. Separation in fa#t for at least 5 yrs
ma,es it proper to se$er t!eir fnan#ial P proprietary interests. +o"e$er' in so appro$ing t!e regime of
separation of property of t!e spouses and t!e dissolution of t!eir #on-ugal partners!ip' t!is #ourt does
not !ere%y a##ord re#ognition to nor legalize t!e de fa#to separation of t!e spouses.
7777777777777
Re+e) ,- I"e)-L0'!a"o
*ac%s: 8eyes fled for legal separation on t!e ground t!at !er !us%and attempted to ,ill !er. S!e "as
granted alimony pendente lite %y t!e -udge. +us%and #laims t!at "ife is not entitled to support
%e#ause s!e is fa#ing a #!arge of adultery.
5 | P a g e
+el,: .ere allegation "ill not depri$e t!e "ife of !er rig!t to re#ei$e support pendente lite. Adultery
must %e esta%lis!ed %y #ompetent e$iden#e. Support pendente lite #omes from t!e #on-ugal funds and
not t!e personal funds of t!e !us%and.
77777777
Re+e) ,- I"e)-L0'!a"o
February 28, 1979, Fernandez, J.
*ac%s0
.anuel 8eyes atta#,ed !is "ife t"i#e "it! t!e intent to ,ill. A #omplaint "as fled on 0une 3' 199/< t!e
frst attempt on .ar#! "as pre$ented %y !er fat!er and t!e se#ond attempt' "!erein s!e "as already
li$ing separately from !er !us%and' "as stopped only %e#ause of !er dri$erQs inter$ention. S!e fled for
legal separation on t!at ground and prayed for support pendente lite for !erself and !er t!ree #!ildren.
!e !us%and opposed t!e appli#ation for support on t!e ground t!at t!e "ife #ommitted adultery "it!
!er p!ysi#ian. !e respondent 0udge 6nes-Lu#iano of t!e lo"er #ourt granted t!e "ife pendente lite.
!e !us%and fled a motion for re#onsideration reiterating t!at !is "ife is not entitled to re#ei$e su#!
support during t!e penden#y of t!e #ase' and t!at e$en if s!e is entitled to it' t!e amount a"arded
"as e5#essi$e. !e -udge redu#ed t!e amount from P5111 to P(111 mont!ly. +us%and fled a petition
for #ertiorari in t!e CA to annul t!e order granting alimony. CA dismissed t!e petition "!i#! made t!e
!us%and appeal to t!e SC.
1ssue:
DK: adultery of t!e "ife "as a defense in an a#tion for support. DK: support #an %e administered
during t!e penden#y of an a#tion.
+el,2Ra%io0
Mes R pro$ided t!at adultery is esta%lis!ed %y #ompetent e$iden#e. .ere allegations "ill not %ar !er
rig!t to re#ei$e support pendente lite. Support #an %e administered during t!e penden#y of su#!
#ases. 6n determining t!e amount' it is not ne#essary to go into t!e merits of t!e #ase. 6t is enoug! t!at
t!e fa#ts %e esta%lis!ed %y a;da$its or ot!er do#umentary e$iden#e appearing in t!e re#ord. N!e SC
on 0uly' 199= ordered t!e alimony to %e P1111>mont! from t!e period of 0une to Ge%ruary 1999' after
t!e trial' it "as re$erted to P(111>mont! %ased on t!e a##epted fndings of t!e trial #ourt t!at t!e
!us%and #ould a3ord it %e#ause of !is aSuen#e and %e#ause it "asnQt e5#essi$e.O
7777777777
Co"trera) ,- Ma'ara!(
May 29, 1970, Dizon, J.
*ac%s0
6n Sept. 19/&' family dri$er told Elena Contreras t!at !er !us%and .a#araig "as li$ing "it! anot!er
"oman. S!e failed to $erify t!e rumor from !er !us%and. 6n April 19/3' s!e !eard rumors t!at !er
!us%and "as seen "it! anot!er "oman "!o "as pregnant. 6n .ay of t!e same year s!e on#e more
failed to as#ertain t!e $era#ity of t!e allegations %e#ause s!e "as afraid t!at it "ould pre#ipitate a
)uarrel and dri$e !im a"ay. +o"e$er s!e fnally found out a%out !er !us%andQs mistress and t!e %irt!
of t!e latterQs #!ild. 6n Je#em%er 19/3' "ife fnally met "it! !er !us%and and pleaded !im to gi$e up
!is mistress and return to t!e #on-ugal !ome' assuring !im t!at all "ould %e forgi$en. +e de#lined. 6n
t!e same mont!' s!e fled suit for legal separation %ut t!e #ase "as dismissed %e#ause pres#ription
!ad' a##ording to t!e #ourt' already ta,en pla#e from Sept. 19/& "!en s!e !ad found out a%out !er
!us%andQs illi#it relations!ip from t!e family dri$er. !e CA dismissed t!e #omplaint %e#ause of
pres#ription.
1ssue0
DK: t!e period of pres#ription is #ounted from Sept. 19/& or from Je#em%er 19/3.
+el,2Ra%io0
Je#em%er 19/3. !is "as t!e only time "!en s!e %e#ame truly #ognizant of !er !us%andQs infdelity.
+earsay information "ould not !a$e %een legally su;#ient as a %asis for legal separation.
7777777777
MaF0!a" ,- MaF0!a"
Facts<
Dife #on$i#ted of adultery. +us%and fled for Je#laration of :ullity of .arriage. Juring pre-trial'
spouses entered into a #ompromise agreement @partial settlement of CP*A' "!i#! "as gi$en -udi#ial
imprimatur.
Held< Foluntary separation of property may ta,e pla#e "!ile ot!er #ases are pending. Pro#eedings for
t!e same do not re)uire t!e inter$ention of t!e Soli#itor *eneral. Ginal
L!F0!dat!o" a"d /!))o0t!o" of Propert+
FC$ ;45- Kn#e t!e separation of property !as %een de#reed' t!e a%solute #ommunity or t!e
#on-ugal partners!ip of gains s!all %e li)uidated in #onformity "it! t!is Code. Juring t!e penden#y of
t!e pro#eedings for separation of property' t!e a%solute #ommunity or t!e #on-ugal partners!ip s!all
pay for t!e support of t!e spouses and t!eir #!ildren.
/ | P a g e
FC$ ;4G- After dissolution of t!e a%solute #ommunity or of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' t!e pro$isions
on #omplete separation of property s!all apply.
FC$ ;4=- !e petition for separation of property and t!e fnal -udgment granting t!e same s!all %e
re#orded in t!e proper lo#al #i$il registries and registries of property.
FC$ ;H>- !e separation of property s!all not pre-udi#e t!e rig!ts pre$iously a#)uired %y #reditors
FC$ ;H;- !e spouses may' in t!e same pro#eedings "!ere separation of property "as de#reed' fle
a motion in #ourt for a de#ree re$i$ing t!e property regime t!at e5isted %et"een t!em %efore t!e
separation of property in any of t!e follo"ing instan#es< @1A D!en t!e #i$il interdi#tion terminates4 @&A
D!en t!e a%sentee spouse reappears4 @3A D!en t!e #ourt' %eing satisfed t!at t!e spouse granted t!e
po"er of administration in t!e marriage settlements "ill not again a%use t!at po"er' aut!orizes t!e
resumption of said administration4 @(A D!en t!e spouse "!o !as left t!e #on-ugal !ome "it!out a
de#ree of legal separation resumes #ommon life "it! t!e ot!er4 @5A D!en parental aut!ority is
-udi#ially restored to t!e spouse pre$iously depri$ed t!ereof4 @/A D!en t!e spouses "!o !a$e
separated in fa#t for at least one year' re#on#ile and resume #ommon life4 or @9A D!en after $oluntary
dissolution of t!e a%solute #ommunity of property or #on-ugal partners!ip !as %een -udi#ially de#reed
upon t!e -oint petition of t!e spouses' t!ey agree to t!e re$i$al of t!e former property regime. :o
$oluntary separation of property may t!ereafter %e granted. !e re$i$al of t!e former property regime
s!all %e go$erned %y Arti#le /9.
FC$ ;H6- !e administration of all #lasses of e5#lusi$e property of eit!er spouse may %e transferred
%y t!e #ourt to t!e ot!er spouse< @1A D!en one spouse %e#omes t!e guardian of t!e ot!er4 @&A D!en
one spouse is -udi#ially de#lared an a%sentee4 @3A D!en one spouse is senten#ed to a penalty "!i#!
#arries "it! it #i$il interdi#tion4 or @(A D!en one spouse %e#omes a fugiti$e from -usti#e or is in !iding
as an a##used in a #riminal #ase. 6f t!e ot!er spouse is not )ualifed %y reason of in#ompeten#e'
#onTi#t of interest' or any ot!er -ust #ause' t!e #ourt s!all appoint a suita%le person to %e t!e
administrator.
(. Sole Administration of Kt!er Spouse2s property
FC$ ;H6- !e administration of all #lasses of e5#lusi$e property of eit!er spouse may %e transferred
%y t!e #ourt to t!e ot!er spouse< @1A D!en one spouse %e#omes t!e guardian of t!e ot!er4 @&A D!en
one spouse is -udi#ially de#lared an a%sentee4 @3A D!en one spouse is senten#ed to a penalty "!i#!
#arries "it! it #i$il interdi#tion4 or @(A D!en one spouse %e#omes a fugiti$e from -usti#e or is in !iding
as an a##used in a #riminal #ase. 6f t!e ot!er spouse is not )ualifed %y reason of in#ompeten#e'
#onTi#t of interest' or any ot!er -ust #ause' t!e #ourt s!all appoint a suita%le person to %e t!e
administrator.
E. 8egime of Separate Property
FC$ ;H4- S!ould t!e future spouses agree in t!e marriage settlements t!at t!eir property relations
during marriage s!all %e go$erned %y t!e regime of separation of property' t!e pro$isions of t!is
C!apter s!all %e suppletory.
FC$ ;HH- Separation of property may refer to present or future property or %ot!. 6t may %e total or
partial. 6n t!e latter #ase' t!e property not agreed upon as separate s!all pertain to t!e a%solute
#ommunity.
FC$ ;H?- Ea#! spouse s!all o"n' dispose of' possess' administer and en-oy !is or !er o"n separate
estate' "it!out need of t!e #onsent of t!e ot!er. o ea#! spouse s!all %elong all earnings from !is or
!er profession' %usiness or industry and all fruits' natural' industrial or #i$il' due or re#ei$ed during t!e
marriage from !is or !er separate property.
FC$ ;H<- ?ot! spouses s!all %ear t!e family e5penses in proportion to t!eir in#ome' or' in #ase of
insu;#ien#y or default t!ereof' to t!e #urrent mar,et $alue of t!eir separate properties. !e lia%ilities
of t!e spouses to #reditors for family e5penses s!all' !o"e$er' %e solidary.
G. Property 8egimes of Bnions Dit!out .arriage
FC$ ;H5- D!en a man and a "oman "!o are #apa#itated to marry ea#! ot!er' li$e e5#lusi$ely "it!
ea#! ot!er as !us%and and "ife "it!out t!e %eneft of marriage or under a $oid marriage' t!eir "ages
and salaries s!all %e o"ned %y t!em in e)ual s!ares and t!e property a#)uired %y %ot! of t!em
t!roug! t!eir "or, or industry s!all %e go$erned %y t!e rules on #o-o"ners!ip. 6n t!e a%sen#e of proof
to t!e #ontrary' properties a#)uired "!ile t!ey li$ed toget!er s!all %e presumed to !a$e %een o%tained
%y t!eir -oint e3orts' "or, or industry' and s!all %e o"ned %y t!em in e)ual s!ares. Gor purposes of
t!is Arti#le' a party "!o did not parti#ipate in t!e a#)uisition %y t!e ot!er party of any property s!all
%e deemed to !a$e #ontri%uted -ointly in t!e a#)uisition t!ereof if t!e formerCs e3orts #onsisted in t!e
#are and maintenan#e of t!e family and of t!e !ouse!old. :eit!er party #an en#um%er or dispose %y
a#ts inter $i$os of !is or !er s!are in t!e property a#)uired during #o!a%itation and o"ned in #ommon'
"it!out t!e #onsent of t!e ot!er' until after t!e termination of t!eir #o!a%itation. D!en only one of t!e
parties to a $oid marriage is in good fait!' t!e s!are of t!e party in %ad fait! in t!e #o-o"ners!ip s!all
%e forfeited in fa$or of t!eir #ommon #!ildren. 6n #ase of default of or "ai$er %y any or all of t!e
#ommon #!ildren or t!eir des#endants' ea#! $a#ant s!are s!all %elong to t!e respe#ti$e sur$i$ing
des#endants. 6n t!e a%sen#e of des#endants' su#! s!are s!all %elong to t!e inno#ent party. 6n all
#ases' t!e forfeiture s!all ta,e pla#e upon termination of t!e #o!a%itation.
9 | P a g e
FC$ ;HG- 6n #ases of #o!a%itation not falling under t!e pre#eding Arti#le' only t!e properties
a#)uired %y %ot! of t!e parties t!roug! t!eir a#tual -oint #ontri%ution of money' property' or industry
s!all %e o"ned %y t!em in #ommon in proportion to t!eir respe#ti$e #ontri%utions. 6n t!e a%sen#e of
proof to t!e #ontrary' t!eir #ontri%utions and #orresponding s!ares are presumed to %e e)ual. !e
same rule and presumption s!all apply to -oint deposits of money and e$iden#es of #redit. 6f one of t!e
parties is $alidly married to anot!er' !is or !er s!are in t!e #o-o"ners!ip s!all a##rue to t!e a%solute
#ommunity or #on-ugal partners!ip e5isting in su#! $alid marriage. 6f t!e party "!o a#ted in %ad fait!
is not $alidly married to anot!er' !is or !er s!all %e forfeited in t!e manner pro$ided in t!e last
paragrap! of t!e pre#eding Arti#le. !e foregoing rules on forfeiture s!all li,e"ise apply e$en if %ot!
parties are in %ad fait!.
IUIAO ,- IUIAO G-R- No ;5<??<$ E0+ >H$ 6>;6- Forfe!t0re of the Share :Propert!e)@ of the
G0!t+ Spo0)e !" Le(a Separat!o" Ca)e)
FACTS:

8ita C. Uuiao @8itaA fled a #omplaint for legal separation against petitioner ?rigido ?. Uuiao @?rigidoA.
8C rendered a de#ision de#laring t!e legal separation t!ere%y a"arding t!e #ustody of t!eir 3 minor
#!ildren in fa$or of 8ita and all remaining properties s!all %e di$ided e)ually %et"een t!e spouses
su%-e#t to t!e respe#ti$e legitimes of t!e #!ildren and t!e payment of t!e unpaid #on-ugal lia%ilities.

?rigido2s s!are' !o"e$er' of t!e net profts earned %y t!e #on-ugal partners!ip is forfeited in fa$or of
t!e #ommon #!ildren %e#ause ?rigido is t!e o3ending spouse.

:eit!er party fled a motion for re#onsideration and appeal "it!in t!e period. After more t!an nine
mont!s from t!e promulgation of t!e Je#ision' t!e petitioner fled %efore t!e 8C a .otion for
Clarif#ation' as,ing t!e 8C to defne t!e term H:et Profts Earned.I

8C !eld t!at t!e p!rase H:E P8KG6 EA8:EJI denotes Ht!e remainder of t!e properties of t!e
parties after dedu#ting t!e separate properties of ea#! Nof t!eO spouse and t!e de%ts.I 6t furt!er !eld
t!at after determining t!e remainder of t!e properties' it s!all %e forfeited in fa$or of t!e #ommon
#!ildren %e#ause t!e o3ending spouse does not !a$e any rig!t to any s!are of t!e net profts earned'
pursuant to Arti#les /3' :o. @&A and (3' :o. @&A of t!e Gamily Code.

!e petitioner #laims t!at t!e #ourt a )uo is "rong "!en it applied Arti#le 1&9 of t!e Gamily Code'
instead of Arti#le 11&. +e argues t!at Arti#le 11& applies %e#ause t!ere is no ot!er pro$ision under t!e
Gamily Code "!i#! defnes net profts earned su%-e#t of forfeiture as a result of legal separation.

D!en a #ouple enters into a regime of a%solute #ommunity' t!e !us%and and t!e "ife %e#ome -oint
o"ners of all t!e properties of t!e marriage. D!ate$er property ea#! spouse %rings into t!e marriage'
and t!ose a#)uired during t!e marriage @e5#ept t!ose e5#luded under Arti#le 9& of t!e Gamily CodeA
form t!e #ommon mass of t!e #oupleCs properties. And "!en t!e #oupleCs marriage or #ommunity is
dissol$ed' t!at #ommon mass is di$ided %et"een t!e spouses' or t!eir respe#ti$e !eirs' e)ually or in
t!e proportion t!e parties !a$e esta%lis!ed' irrespe#ti$e of t!e $alue ea#! one may !a$e originally
o"ned.

6n t!is #ase' assuming arguendo t!at Art 11& is appli#a%le' sin#e it !as %een esta%lis!ed t!at t!e
spouses !a$e no separate properties' "!at "ill %e di$ided e)ually %et"een t!em is simply t!e Hnet
profts.I And sin#e t!e legal separation de#ision states t!at t!e V s!are of ?rigido in t!e net profts
s!all %e a"arded to t!e #!ildren' ?rigido "ill still %e left "it! not!ing.

Kn t!e ot!er !and' "!en a #ouple enters into a regime of #on-ugal partners!ip of gains under Arti#le
1(& of t!e Ci$il Code' Ht!e !us%and and t!e "ife pla#e in #ommon fund t!e fruits of t!eir separate
property and in#ome from t!eir "or, or industry' and di$ide e)ually' upon t!e dissolution of t!e
marriage or of t!e partners!ip' t!e net gains or %enefts o%tained indis#riminately %y eit!er spouse
during t!e marriage.I Grom t!e foregoing pro$ision' ea#! of t!e #ouple !as !is and !er o"n property
and de%ts. !e la" does not intend to e3e#t a mi5ture or merger of t!ose de%ts or properties %et"een
t!e spouses. 8at!er' it esta%lis!es a #omplete separation of #apitals.

6n t!e instant #ase' sin#e it "as already esta%lis!ed %y t!e trial #ourt t!at t!e spouses !a$e no
separate properties' t!ere is not!ing to return to any of t!em. !e listed properties a%o$e are
#onsidered part of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. !us' ordinarily' "!at remains in t!e a%o$e-listed
properties s!ould %e di$ided e)ually %et"een t!e spouses and>or t!eir respe#ti$e !eirs. +o"e$er'
sin#e t!e trial #ourt found t!e petitioner t!e guilty party' !is s!are from t!e net profts of t!e #on-ugal
partners!ip is forfeited in fa$or of t!e #ommon #!ildren' pursuant to Arti#le /3@&A of t!e Gamily Code.
Again' lest "e %e #onfused' li,e in t!e a%solute #ommunity regime' not!ing "ill %e returned to t!e
guilty party in t!e #on-ugal partners!ip regime' %e#ause t!ere is no separate property "!i#! may %e
a##ounted for in t!e guilty partyCs fa$or.
7777777777
Jade) ,- RTC
*ac%s: Faldez and *omez soug!t for t!e de#laration of nullity of t!eir marriage under Arti#le 3/' "!i#!
t!e #ourt granted.
+el,: Co-o"ners!ip is t!e property regime %et"een t!e t"o sin#e t!eir marriage is $oid a% initio.
= | P a g e
777777777
3al,es vs. R4C
('# SCRA ((1
FACTS:
Antonio Faldez and Consuelo *omez "ere married in 1991 and %egotten 5 #!ildren. Faldez fled a
petition in 199& for a de#laration of nullity of t!eir marriage pursuant to Arti#le 3/ of t!e Gamily Code'
"!i#! "as granted !en#e' marriage is null and $oid on t!e ground of t!eir mutual psy#!ologi#al
in#apa#ity. Stella and 0oa)uin are pla#ed under t!e #ustody of t!eir mot!er "!ile t!e ot!er 3 si%lings
are free to #!oose "!i#! t!ey prefer.
*omez soug!t a #larif#ation of t!at portion in t!e de#ision regarding t!e pro#edure for t!e li)uidation
of #ommon property in Hunions "it!out marriageI. Juring t!e !earing on t!e motion' t!e #!ildren fled
a -oint a;da$it e5pressing desire to stay "it! t!eir fat!er.
ISSUE: D!et!er or not t!e property regime s!ould %e %ased on #o-o"ners!ip.
.EL/:
!e Supreme Court ruled t!at in a $oid marriage' regardless of t!e #ause t!ereof' t!e property
relations of t!e parties are go$erned %y t!e rules on #o-o"ners!ip. Any property a#)uired during t!e
union is prima fa#ie presumed to !a$e %een o%tained t!roug! t!eir -oint e3orts. A party "!o did not
parti#ipate in t!e a#)uisition of t!e property s!all %e #onsidered as !a$ing #ontri%uted t!ereto -ointly if
said party2s e3orts #onsisted in t!e #are and maintenan#e of t!e family.
7777777777777
LAIN M- /IKO $ G-R- No- ;5G>HHPet!t!o"er$- ,er)0)
-MA- CARI/A/ L- /IKO$ Pro20(ated:Re)po"de"t- Ea"0ar+ ;=$ 6>;;CARPIO$ E-:
FACTS:
Kn 1( 0anuary 199=' Petitioner and 8espondent "ere married. Kn 31 .ay &111' petitioner fled an
a#tion for Je#laration of :ullity of .arriage against respondent' #iting psy#!ologi#al in#apa#ity under
Arti#le 3/ of t!e Gamily Code. E5tra-udi#ial ser$i#e of summons "as e3e#ted upon respondent "!o' at
t!e time of t!e fling of t!e petition' "as already li$ing in t!e Bnited States of Ameri#a. Jespite re#eipt
of t!e summons' respondent did not fle an ans"er to t!e petition "it!in t!e elementary period.
Petitioner later learned t!at respondent fled a petition for di$or#e>dissolution of !er marriage "it!
petitioner' "!i#! "as granted %y t!e Superior Court of California on &5 .ay &111. Petitioner also
learned t!at on 5 K#to%er &111' respondent married a #ertain .anuel F. Al#antara.rial #ourt granted
petition for de#laration of :ullity and dissol$ed t!e regime of a%solute #ommunity of property.
Petitioner fled a motion for partial re#onsideration )uestioning t!e dissolution of t!e a%solute
#ommunity of property and t!e ruling t!at t!e de#ree of annulment s!all only %e issued upon
#omplian#e "it! Arti#les 51 and 51 of t!e Gamily Code. rial #ourt partially granted t!e motion.N
ORIGINAL RULING: L
A JEC8EE KG A?SKLBE :BLL6M KG .A886A*E s!all only %e issued upon #omplian#e "it! Arti#leNsO 51
and 51 of t!e Gamily Code.
M

NEW ONE: L
A JEC8EE KG A?SKLBE :BLL6M KG .A886A*E s!all %e issued after li)uidation' partition
a"d d!)tr!%0t!o" of the part!e)3 propert!e) 0"der Art!'e ;H5 of the Fa2!+ Code-M
OPetitioner assails t!e @ne"A ruling as "ell arguing t!at Se#tion 19@1A of t!e 8ule on Je#laration
of A%solute :ullity of :ull .arriages and Annulment of Foida%le .arriages @t!e 8uleA does not apply to
Arti#le 1(9 of t!e Gamily Code.
ISSUE:
Do: t!e trial #ourt erred "!en it ordered t!at a de#ree of a%solute nullity of marriage s!all only
%e !))0ed after !F0!dat!o"$ part!t!o"$ a"d d!)tr!%0t!o" of the part!e)3 propert!e) 0"der
Art!'e ;H5 of the
Gamily Code
.EL/:
MES @t!ey erredA. Se# 19 @1A of t!e 8ule does not apply. 6t is #lear from Arti#le 51 of t!e Gamily Code
t!at Se#tion 19@1A of t!e 8ule applies only to marriages "!i#! are de#lared $oid a% initio or annulled %y
fnal -udgment under Arti#les (1 @%igamousA and (5 @$oida%leA of t!e Gamily Code. 6n t!is #ase'
petitioner3) 2arr!a(e to re)po"de"t *a) de'ared $oid under Art 3/ of t!e Gamily Code and not
under Arti#le (1 or (5. !us' "!at go$erns t!e li)uidation of properties o"ned in #ommon %y petitioner
and respondent are t!e rules on #o-o"ners!ip. 6t is not ne#essary to li)uidate t!e properties of t!e
spouses in t!e same pro#eeding for de#laration of nullity of marriage.
L
D+E8EGK8E' "e AGG68. t!e Je#ision of t!e trial #ourt "it! t!e .KJ6G6CA6K: t!at t!e de#ree
of a%solute nullity of t!e marriage s!all %e issued upon f!"a!t+ of the tr!a 'o0rt3) de'!)!o"
*!tho0t *a!t!"( for the !F0!dat!o"$ part!t!o"$ a"d d!)tr!%0t!o" of the part!e)3 propert!e)
0"der Art!'e ;H5 of the Fa2!+
Code.
9 | P a g e
M

NOTES :pert!"e"t pro,!)!o"@:Se'- ;=- /e'!)!o"- - :;@
6f t!e #ourt renders a de#ision granting t!e petition' it s!all de#lare t!erein t!at t!e de#ree of a%solute
nullity or de#ree of annulment s!all %e issued %y t!e #ourt only after #omplian#e "it! Arti#les 51 and
51 of t!e Gamily Code as implemented under t!e 8ule on Li)uidation' Partition and Jistri%ution of
Properties.
FC$ Art- ?>-
!e e3e#ts pro$ided for %y paragrap!s @&A' @3A' @(A and @5A of Arti#le (3 and %y Arti#le (( s!all also
apply in t!e proper #ases to marriages "!i#! are de#lared a% initio or annulled %y fnal -udgment under
Arti#les (1 and (5.!e fnal -udgment in su#! #ases s!all pro$ide for t!e li)uidation' partition and
distri%ution of t!e properties of t!e spouses' t!e #ustody and support of t!e #ommon #!ildren' and t!e
deli$ery of t!ird presumpti$e legitimes' unless su#! matters !ad %een ad-udi#ated in pre$ious -udi#ial
pro#eedings. All #reditors of t!e spouses as "ell as of t!e a%solute #ommunity or t!e #on-ugal
partners!ip s!all %e notifed of t!e pro#eedings for li)uidation. 6n t!e partition' t!e #on-ugal d"elling
and t!e lot on "!i#! it is situated' s!all %e ad-udi#ated in a##ordan#e "it! t!e pro$isions of Arti#les
11& and 1&9.
FC$ Art- ?;
. 6n said partition' t!e $alue of t!e presumpti$e legitimes of all #ommon #!ildren' #omputed as of t!e
date of t!e fnal -udgment of t!e trial #ourt' s!all %e deli$ered in #as!' property or sound se#urities'
unless t!e parties' %y mutual agreement -udi#ially appro$ed' !ad already pro$ided for su#! matters.
!e #!ildren or t!eir guardian or t!e trustee of t!eir property may as, for t!e enfor#ement of
t!e -udgment. !e deli$ery of t!e presumpti$e legitimes !erein pres#ri%ed s!all in no "ay pre-udi#e
t!e ultimate su##essional rig!ts of t!e #!ildren a##ruing upon t!e deat! of eit!er of %ot! of t!e
parents4 %ut t!e $alue of t!e properties already re#ei$ed under t!e de#ree of annulment or a%solute
nullity s!all %e #onsidered as ad$an#es on t!eir legitime. @nA
777777777777777
CARINO JS CARINO
Ar%icle 4#
6n 19/9 SPK( Santiago Carino married Susan :i#dao Carino. +e !ad & #!ildren "it! !er. 6n 199&' SPK(
#ontra#ted a se#ond marriage' t!is time "it! Susan Mee Carino. 6n 19==' prior to !is se#ond marriage'
SPK( is already %edridden and !e "as under t!e #are of Mee. 6n 199&' !e died 13 days after !is
marriage "it! Mee. !ereafter' t!e spouses "ent on to #laim t!e %enefts of SPK(. :i#dao "as a%le to
#laim a total of P1(1'111.11 "!ile Mee "as a%le to #olle#t a total of P&1'111.11. 6n 1993' Mee fled an
a#tion for #olle#tion of sum of money against :i#dao. S!e "anted to !a$e !alf of t!e P1(1,. Mee
admitted t!at !er marriage "it! SPK( "as solemnized during t!e su%sisten#e of t!e marriage %>n
SPK( and :i#dao %ut t!e said marriage %et"een :i#dao and SPK( is null and $oid due to t!e a%sen#e
of a $alid marriage li#ense as #ertifed %y t!e lo#al #i$il registrar. Mee also #laimed t!at s!e only found
out a%out t!e pre$ious marriage on SPK(2s funeral.
ISSUE: D!et!er or not t!e a%solute nullity of marriage may %e in$o,ed to #laim presumpti$e
legitimes.
.EL/: !e marriage %et"een :i#dao and SPK( is null and $oid due t!e a%sen#e of a $alid marriage
li#ense. !e marriage %et"een Mee and SPK( is li,e"ise null and $oid for t!e same !as %een
solemnized "it!out t!e -udi#ial de#laration of t!e nullity of t!e marriage %et"een :i#dao and SPK(.
Bnder Arti#le (1 of t!e GC' t!e a%solute nullity of a pre$ious marriage may %e in$o,ed for purposes of
remarriage on t!e %asis solely of a fnal -udgment de#laring su#! pre$ious marriage $oid. .eaning'
"!ere t!e a%solute nullity of a pre$ious marriage is soug!t to %e in$o,ed for purposes of #ontra#ting a
se#ond marriage' t!e sole %asis a##epta%le in la"' for said pro-e#ted marriage to %e free from legal
infrmity' is a fnal -udgment de#laring t!e pre$ious marriage $oid. +o"e$er' for purposes ot!er t!an
remarriage' no -udi#ial a#tion is ne#essary to de#lare a marriage an a%solute nullity. Gor ot!er
purposes' su#! as %ut not limited to t!e determination of !eirs!ip' legitima#y or illegitima#y of a #!ild'
settlement of estate' dissolution of property regime' or a #riminal #ase for t!at matter' t!e #ourt may
pass upon t!e $alidity of marriage e$en after t!e deat! of t!e parties t!ereto' and e$en in a suit not
dire#tly instituted to )uestion t!e $alidity of said marriage' so long as it is essential to t!e
determination of t!e #ase. 6n su#! instan#es' e$iden#e must %e addu#ed' testimonial or do#umentary'
to pro$e t!e e5isten#e of grounds rendering su#! a pre$ious marriage an a%solute nullity. !ese need
not %e limited solely to an earlier fnal -udgment of a #ourt de#laring su#! pre$ious marriage $oid.
!e SC ruled t!at Mee !as no rig!t to t!e %enefts earned %y SPK( as a poli#eman for t!eir marriage is
$oid due to %igamy4 s!e is only entitled to properties' money et# o"ned %y t!em in #ommon in
proportion to t!eir respe#ti$e #ontri%utions. Dages and salaries earned %y ea#! party s!all %elong to
!im or !er e5#lusi$ely @Art. 1(= of GCA. :i#dao is entitled to t!e full %enefts earned %y SPK( as a #op
e$en if t!eir marriage is li,e"ise $oid. !is is %e#ause t!e t"o "ere #apa#itated to marry ea#! ot!er
for t!ere "ere no impediments %ut t!eir marriage "as $oid due to t!e la#, of a marriage li#ense4 in
t!eir situation' t!eir property relations is go$erned %y Art 1(9 of t!e GC "!i#! pro$ides t!at e$eryt!ing
t!ey earned during t!eir #o!a%itation is presumed to !a$e %een e)ually #ontri%uted %y ea#! party R
t!is in#ludes salaries and "ages earned %y ea#! party not"it!standing t!e fa#t t!at t!e ot!er may not
!a$e #ontri%uted at all.
77777777777
A'aNar , A'aNar$ G-R- No- ;5HH?;$ O'to%er ;4$ 6>>=
FACTS: Feroni#a and 8ey got married. After t!eir "edding' t!ey li$ed in 8ey2s !ouse in K##idental
.indoro. !en t!ey returned to .anila' %ut 8ey did not li$e "it! Feroni#a in !er !ome in ondo. 8ey
11 | P a g e
t!en left for 8iya!d "!ere !e "as "or,ing. +e ne$er #onta#ted !is "ife sin#e !e left. A%out a year and
a !alf' Feroni#a "as informed t!at !er !us%and is #oming !ome. ?ut s!e "as surprised t!at !e did not
go dire#tly to !er in ondo %ut to !is !ouse in .indoro instead. !us' petitioner #on#luded t!at
respondent "as p!ysi#ally in#apa%le of #onsummating !is marriage "it! !er' pro$iding su;#ient #ause
for annulment of t!eir marriage pursuant to paragrap! 5' Arti#le (5 of t!e Gamily Code. 8espondent
!as %een un#ooperati$e to t!e in$estigation. Jr. ayag testifed t!at 8ey "as su3ering from :ar#issisti#
Personality Jisorder' !en#e' it is a su;#ient ground for de#laration of nullity of marriage. 8C denied.
CA also denied. +en#e' t!is petition.
ISSUE D>: t!e respondent is psy#!ologi#ally in#apa#itated to perform !is essential marriage
o%ligations
.EL/: SC denied. !e a#tion originally fled "as annulment of marriage %ased on Arti#le (5'
paragrap! 5 of t!e Gamily Code. Arti#le (5@5A of t!e Gamily Code refers to la#, of po"er to #opulate.
N1/O 6n#apa#ity to #onsummate denotes t!e permanent ina%ility on t!e part of t!e spouses to perform
t!e #omplete a#t of se5ual inter#ourse. :o e$iden#e "as presented in t!e #ase at %ar to esta%lis! t!at
respondent "as in any "ay p!ysi#ally in#apa%le to #onsummate !is marriage "it! petitioner.
Petitioner e$en admitted during !er #ross-e5amination t!at s!e and respondent !ad se5ual inter#ourse
after t!eir "edding and %efore respondent left for a%road. Petitioner "as a#tually see,ing for
de#laration of nullity of !er marriage to respondent %ased on t!e latter2s psy#!ologi#al in#apa#ity to
#omply "it! !is marital o%ligations of marriage under Arti#le 3/ of t!e Gamily Code. !e Court de#lared
t!at Hpsy#!ologi#al in#apa#ityI under Arti#le 3/ of t!e Gamily Code is not meant to #ompre!end all
possi%le #ases of psy#!oses. 6t s!ould refer' rat!er' to no less t!an a mental @not p!ysi#alA in#apa#ity
t!at #auses a party to %e truly in #ogniti$e of t!e %asi# marital #o$enants t!at #on#omitantly must %e
assumed and dis#!arged %y t!e parties to t!e marriage. Psy#!ologi#al in#apa#ity must %e
#!ara#terized %y
7777777
J!a"0e,a ,)- Co0rt of Appea)
G-R- No- ;46=?? $c%ober (7, (##'
P8KCEJB8AL +6SK8M<
!is petition for re$ie" under 8ule (5 of t!e 8ules of Court assails t!e 0anuary &/' 199= Je#ision of t!e
Court of Appeals in CA-*.8. CF :o. 51=3&' a;rming "it! modif#ation t!e Je#ision dated 0anuary 1&'
199/ of t!e 8egional rial Court of Falenzuela' .etro .anila' and ?ran#! 19& in Ci$il Case :o. 3999-F-
9& @aA dismissing petitioner2s petition for t!e annulment of !is marriage to pri$ate respondent and @%A
ordering !im to pay moral and e5emplary damages' attorney2s fees and #osts. Also assailed is t!e
.ar#! 5' 199= 8esolution denying petitioner2s motion for re#onsideration.
FACTS:
6n April 19==' Krlando Fillanue$a married Lilia Canalita- Fillanue$a %efore a trial #ourt -udge in Puerto
Prin#esa. 6n :o$em%er 199&' Krlando fled %efore t!e trial #ourt a petition for annulment of !is
marriage. +e #laimed t!at t!reats of $iolen#e and duress for#ed !im to marry Lilia "!o "as t!en
pregnant. Krlando an#!ored !is prayer for t!e annulment of !is marriage on t!e ground t!at !e did not
freely #onsent to %e married to Lilia. +e #ited se$eral in#idents t!at #reated on !is mind a reasona%le
and "ell-grounded fear of an imminent and gra$e danger to !is life and safety' to "it< t!e !arassing
p!one #alls from Lilia and strangers as "ell as t!e un"anted $isits %y t!ree men at t!e premises of t!e
Bni$ersity of t!e East after !is #lasses t!ereat' and t!e t!reatening presen#e of a #ertain Wa Celso' a
supposed mem%er of t!e :e" People2s Army "!om appellant #laimed to !a$e %een !ired %y Lilia and
"!o a##ompanied !im in going to !er !ome pro$in#e of Pala"an to marry !er. Kn t!e ot!er !and Lilia
denied Krlando2s allegations and s!e said t!at Krlando freely #o!a%ited "it! !er after t!e marriage
and s!e s!o"ed 1( letters t!at s!o"s Krlando2s a3e#tion and #are to"ards !er.
ISSUE:
@aA D!et!er t!e su%-e#t marriage may %e annulled on t!e ground of $itiated #onsent under Arti#le (5
of t!e Gamily Code4 and
A!"#$:
o. %&e court ruled t&at 'itiation o( consent is not attendant in t&is case.!erefore' t!e petition for
annulment' "!i#! is an#!ored to !is allegation t!at !e did not freely gi$e !is #onsent' s!ould %e
dismissed.

REASONING:
!e SC ruled t!at Krlando2s allegation of fraud and intimidation is untena%le. Kn its fa#e' it is o%$ious
t!at Krlando is only see,ing to annul !is marriage "it! Lilia so as to !a$e t!e pending appealed
%igamy #ase Nfled against !im %y LiliaO to %e dismissed.
Kn t!e merits of t!e #ase' Krlando2s allegation of fear "as not #on#retely esta%lis!ed. !e Court is not
#on$in#ed t!at appellant2s appre!ension of danger to !is person is so o$er"!elming as to depri$e !im
of t!e "ill to enter $oluntarily to a #ontra#t of marriage. 6t is not disputed t!at at t!e time !e "as
allegedly %eing !arassed' appellant "or,ed as a se#urity guard in a %an,. *i$en !is employment at
t!at time' it is reasona%le to assume t!at appellant ,ne" t!e rudiments of self-defense' or' at t!e $ery
least' t!e proper "ay to ,eep !imself out of !arm2s "ay. Gor sure' it is e$en dou%tful if t!reats "ere
indeed made to %ear upon appellant' "!at "it! t!e fa#t t!at !e ne$er soug!t t!e assistan#e of t!e
se#urity personnel of !is s#!ool nor t!e poli#e regarding t!e a#ti$ities of t!ose "!o "ere t!reatening
11 | P a g e
!im. And neit!er did !e inform t!e -udge a%out !is predi#ament prior to solemnizing t!eir marriage.
Graud #annot %e raised as a ground as "ell. +is allegation t!at !e ne$er !ad an ere#tion during t!eir
se5ual inter#ourse is in#redi%le and is an outrig!t lie. +is #ounsel also #on#eded %efore t!e lo"er #ourt
t!at !is #lient !ad a se5ual relations!ip "it! Lilia.
.OL/ING:
%&us, t&e )etition (or annul*ent +as ,ranted, but t&e a+ard o( moral and e5emplary damages
is deeted for la#, of %asis.
77777777777777777
TITLE:

ONE ENG OIAM a-A-a- WILLIAM ONG$ petitioner $s LUCITA ONG$ respondent
/ATE
<
K#to%er &11/
PONENTE:
0. Austria-.artinez
FACTS
Dilliam Kng and Lu#ita Kng "ere married on 0uly 13' 1995. Bnion "as%lessed "it! 3 #!ildren. Kn
.ar#! &1' 199/' Lu#ita fled a #omplaint for legalseparation under Art 55 @1A of GC on grounds of
p!ysi#al $iolen#e' t!reats'intimidation and grossly a%usi$e #ondu#t of petitioner. 8C granted prayer
for legalseparation. CA up!eld 8C2s de#ision "!en !erein petitioner fled a .otion for8e#onsideration
@.8A. !e #lima5 of t!e #ouple2s drama "as on Je#em%er 1(' 1995"!en t!e respondent as,ed
petitioner to %ring Wingston' t!eir son' %a#, from?a#olod "!i#! turned into a $iolent )uarrel "it!
t!e petitioner !itting t!erespondent on t!e !ead' left #!ee,' eye' stoma#!' arms' and ultimately
pointing agun at respondent2s !ead as,ing !er to lea$e t!e #on-ugal !ouse.
ISSUES:

D!et!er or not CA erred in up!olding t!e 8C2s de#ision granting legalseparation to Lu#ita "!en s!e
!erself !as gi$en ground for legal separation "!ena%andoned !er family.

.EL/:
:o.
RATIO:

6t is true t!at a de#ree of legal separation s!ould not %e granted "!en%ot! parties !a$e gi$en ground
for legal separation @Art 5/ @(A GCA. +o"e$er' t!ea%andonment referred to in t!e Gamilu Code
is a%andonment "it!out -ustifa%le#ause for more t!an one year. Also' it "as esta%lis!ed t!at Lu#ita
left Dilliam due to!is a%usi$e #ondu#t "!i#! does not #onstitute t!e a%andonment #ontemplated int!e
said pro$ision.
/ISPOSITION:
Petition denied for la#, of merit
77777777777
Mar!o S!o'h! ,)- Afredo GoNo"$ W!"!fred GoNo"$ E,!ra GoNo" I"ter-/e!2e")!o"a Reat+$
I"'P GR No- ;<==>>P Mar'h ;G$ 6>;>
FACTS< Alfredo and El$ira are married. Dinifred is t!eir daug!ter.!e property in$ol$ed in t!is #ase is a
31'111 s). m. lot in .ala%on "!i#! is registered in t!e name of Alfredo. !e property regime of t!e
#ouple is #on-ugal partners!ip of gains.
El$ira fled for legal separation. ? fled a noti#e of lis pendens o$ert!e title of t!e lot in .ala%on.
D!ile t!e legal separation #ase "as still pending' Alfredo entered into an agreement "it! .ario "!o
paid P5 million in earnest money and too, possession of t!e property. itle still "it! noti#e of lis
pendens.
Ca$ite 8C granted legal separation. CP* "as dissol$ed and li)uidated. Alfredo' t!e guilty spouse' did
not re#ei$e !is s!are in t!e net profts' "!i#! instead "ent to t!eir daug!ter' Dinifred. Ca$ite 8C ruled
land in .ala%on as #on-ugal property.
Alfred e5e#uted a Jeed of Jonation o$er t!e property in fa$our of Dinifred. .ala%on 8C issued ne"
C in t!e name of Dinifred "it!out annotating t!e agreement %et"een Alfredo and .ario Sio#!i' nor
t!e noti#e of lis pendens fled %y El$ira' t!e "ife. !en' t!roug! an SPA' Dinifred ga$e aut!ority to !er
fat!er' Alfred' to sell t!e lot. Alfred sold it to 6nter-Jimensional 8ealty for P1= million. A C "as issued
to 6nter-Jimensional 8ealty.
.ario fled a #ase "it! .ala%on 8C @property "as in .ala%onA to Annul donation to Dinifred' Annul t!e
Sale to 6nter-Jimensional' and to remo$e noti#e of lis pendens o$er title of land.
1& | P a g e
.ala%on 8C up!eld original agreement to %uy and sell %et"een.ario and Alfredo and de#lared
$oid t!e sale %y Alfredo and Dinifred to 6nter-Jimensional.
+o"e$er' Court of Appeals said agreement %et"een .ario and Alfredo is $oid %e#ause @1A it "as
entered into "it!out t!e #onsent of El$ira' Alfredo2s "ife4 and' @&A Alfredo2s V undi$ided s!are !as
%een forfeited in fa$our of Dinifred %y t!e grant of legal separation %y t!e Ca$ite 8C. @:ote t!ese
reasons gi$en %y t!e CA.A
ISSUES:
:;@ Wa) the a(ree2e"t %et*ee" Mar!o a"d Afredo ,a!d8 .arioargues t!at e$en if t!e
sale to .ario "as done "it!out t!e #onsent of El$ira' t!e sale s!ould %e treated as a #ontinuing o3er
"!i#! may %e perfe#ted %y t!e a##eptan#e of t!e ot!er spouse %efore t!e o3er is
"it!dra"n. .ario alleges t!at El$ira2s #ondu#t s!o"ed !er a#)uies#en#e to t!e sale.
SC says t!e CA "as rig!t in de#laring t!e sale %et"een .ario and Alfredo as $oid. Bnder Art 1&( of t!e
Gamily Code' if one of t!e spouses "as in#apa#itated or ot!er"ise una%le to parti#ipate in t!e
administration of t!e properties' t!e ot!er spouse may assume sole po"ers of administration. !ese
po"ers' !o"e$er do not in#lude t!e po"er to dispose or en#um%er t!e properties "!i#! re)uire a #ourt
order or t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse. !e agreement is $oid in its entirety' not -ust to t!e
s!are of t!e !us%and' Alfredo. !e Court !o"e$er said t!at t!e CA erred in saying t!at t!e V undi$ided
s!are of Alfredo "as forfeited in fa$our of Dinifred. As regards .ario2s #ontention t!at t!e Agreement
is a #ontinuing o3er "!i#! may %e perfe#ted %y El$ira2s a##eptan#e %efore t!e o3er is "it!dra"n' t!e
fa#t t!at t!e property "as su%se)uently donated %y Alfredo to Dinifred and t!en sold to 6J86 #learly
indi#ates t!at t!e o3er "as already "it!dra"n.
!e Court said t!e CA erred in saying t!at Alfredo forfeited !is V s!are in t!e #on-ugal property as a
result of t!e grant of legal separation %y t!e Ca$ite 8C. Art /3 @E3e#ts of legal separationA in relation
to Art (3@&A @E3e#ts of termination of su%se)uent marriageA pro$ides t!at t!e guilty spouse in legal
separation forfeits !is s!are in t!e net profts of t!e property. !e Court said' HClearly' "!at is forfeited
in fa$or of Dinifred is not Alfredo2s s!are in t!e #on-ugal partners!ip property %ut merely in t!e net
profts of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip property.I !us' as regards t!is point' t!e CA erred.
:6@ Wa) the do"at!o" to W!"!fred ,a!d8 :o' t!e donation "as not $alid. El$ira2s #onsent "as
a%sent.
:4@ Wa) the )ae to I"ter-/!2e")!o"a ,a!d8 6nter-Jimensional says it is a %uyer in good fait!. SC
says no. 6nter-Jimensional ,ne" of t!e noti#e of lis pendens.
777777777
P8KPE8M 8ELA6K:S<

EoaF0!"o ,)- Re+e)
Ga#ts<
Lourdes 8eyes "as t!e "ido" of 8odolfo 8eyes' !a$ing %een married in 19(9 in .anila. 8odolfo'
!o"e$er' in t!e #ourse of t!eir marriage' !ad illi#it relations "it! one .ilagros 0oa)uino' to "!om !e
allegedly Lput into #ustodyL some of t!e #oupleCs #on-ugal properties. Said properties spe#if#ally
in#lude !is earnings and retirement %enefts from "or,ing as t!e Fi#e President and Comptroller of
Darner ?arns and t"o #ars4 and t!at t!e amount !erein stated "as used to pay o3 t!e loan and
mont!ly mortgage of a !ouse in Parana)ue' registered under 0oa)uinoCs name. Lourdes t!en prayed
t!at t!e properties %e de#lared #on-ugal' t!at .ilagros surrenders t!e possession t!ereof' and t!at
damages %e a"arded. .ilagros' on t!e ot!er !and' #ontends t!at s!e pur#!ased t!e mentioned
properties in !er e5#lusi$e #apa#ity' t!at s!e !ad no ,no"ledge of t!e 8odolfoCs frst marriage' t!at
s!e !ad "as ne$er a %enef#iary of t!e latterCs earnings' and t!at !er li$ing toget!er "it! 8odolfo for
nineteen @19A years' along "it! t!e fa#t t!at s!e !ad #!ildren "it! !im' %e #onsidered %y t!e #ourt
in rendering -udgment. Lourdes' !o"e$er' died and "as later represented %y !er #!ildren "it! 8odolfo.
Su%se)uently' t!e trial #ourt granted LourdesC #omplaint. Bpon appeal to t!e CA' !o"e$er' .ilagros
reiterated !er stand and )uestioned t!e fndings of t!e trial #ourt. ?ut to no a$ail' t!e CA li,e"ise !eld
t!at t!e property !ad %een paid out of t!e #on-ugal funds of 8odolfo and Lourdes' %e#ause t!e funds
used to pay t!e !ouse o3 "as sour#ed from 8odolfoCs earnings as part of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.
6ssue< DK: t!e properties in )uestion "ere #on-ugal
DK: t!e petitionerCs #ommon-la" relations!ip "it! 8odolfo $alidates !er #laim of o"ners!ip
+eld<
Mes. !e property regime appli#a%le is t!e CP*' !a$ing %een t!e default property regime during t!e
time of LourdesC marriage. Su#! properties in#lude t!e follo"ing' as enumerated %y Arti#le 153<@1A !at
"!i#! is a#)uired %y onerous title during t!e marriage at t!e e5pense of t!e #ommon fund' "!et!er
t!e a#)uisition %e for t!e partners!ip' or for only one of t!e spouses4@&A !at "!i#! is o%tained %y t!e
industry' or "or,' or as salary of t!e spouses' or of eit!er of t!em4@3A !e fruits' rents or interests
re#ei$ed or due during t!e marriage' #oming from t!e #ommon property or from t!e e5#lusi$e property
13 | P a g e
of ea#! spouse. Su%-e#t properties fall s)uarely "it!in t!e said #ategories. Arti#le 1/1 t!en pres#ri%es
t!at all properties of t!e marriage are presumed to%e #on-ugal and #o$ered %y t!e CP* unless re%utted
and pro$en ot!er"ise. 0oa)uino' !a$ing failed to pro$e t!at s!e "as fnan#ially #apa%le and t!at s!e
pur#!ased said properties in !er e5#lusi$e #apa#ity' #ould not ma,e a $alid #laim of o"ners!ip. As to
0oa)uin2s #laim of !a$ing t!e %eneft of #o-o"ners!ip #onferred %y t!e #ommon-la" relations!ip under
Arti#le 1(( of t!e Ci$il Code @in #onne#tion "it! Arti#le 1(= of t!e Gamily CodeA' t!e Court reiterated
t!at t!e said pro$ision is inappli#a%le to #ommon-la" relations amounting to adultery or #on#u%inage.
0urispruden#e !olds t!at for Arti#le 1(( to apply' t!e #ouple must not !a$e any legal impediment to
#ontra#t a marriage. And sin#e 8odolfo and 0oa)uino "ere in#apa#itated to marry due to 8odolfoCs
marriage "it! Lourdes' s!e #annot $alidly in$o,e t!e rig!t #onferred. !us' only t!e property a#)uired
%y t!em-t!roug! t!eir a#tual -oint #ontri%ution of money' property' or industry-s!all %e o"ned %y t!em
in #ommon and in proportion to t!eir respe#ti$e #ontri%ution. .ilagros li,e"ise failed to pro$e t!at s!e
"as indeed fnan#ially #apa%le of pur#!asing t!e !ouse and lot' t!at s!e a#tually #ontri%uted to
t!e payments' and t!at s!e "as employed anytime after 19/1 "!en t!e property "as pur#!ased. !e
Certif#ation and A;da$its stating t!at s!e %orro"ed money from !er si%lings and !ad earnings from a
-e"elry %usiness "ere also deemed to !a$e no pro%ati$e $alue as t!ey "ere not #ross-e5amined %y t!e
respondents. !e petition is t!erefore denied and t!e de#ision of t!e CA is a;rmed.
77777777777777777
C.ING ,)- GOYANOO$ ER- GR No- ;<?G5=No,e2%er ;>$ 6>><
GACS<
!e respondents are t!e se$en #!ildren out of t!e legal union of 0osep! *oyan,o' Sr. and Epifania dela
Cruz.
8espondents #laim t!at in 19/1' t!eir parents a#)uired a real property in Ce%u "!i#! "as frst
registered in t!e name of t!eir aunt as t!eir parents "ere still C!inese #itizens t!is time.
6n .ay' 1993' t!eir aunt e5e#uted a Jeed of A%solute Sale o$er t!e su%-e#t property in fa$or of t!eir
fat!er. 6n turn' on K#to%er 1993' respondent2s fat!er e5e#uted a Jeed of A%solute Sale in fa$or of
t!e petitioner' .aria C!ing' !is #ommon-la" "ife.
After *oyan,o Sr.2s deat!' t!e respondents dis#o$ered t!at t!e property !ad %een transferred to t!e
name of t!e petitioner.
!us' t!e respondents fled a Complaint for t!e re#o$ery of t!e property and damages against
petitioner and t!ey prayed for t!e nullif#ation of t!e deed of sale and t!e issuan#e of a ne" one in
fa$or of t!eir fat!er.
6SSBES<
D!et!er or not t!e su%-e#t property "as part of t!e #on-ugal property of Spouses 0osep! *oyan,o
and Epifania dela Cruz.
D!et!er or not t!e Jeed of A%solute Sale in fa$or of !erein petitioner "as$oid and ine5istent.
+ELJ<
1A MES. !e su%-e#t property "as part of t!e #on-ugal property of t!e Spouses. As it "as a#)uired
during t!e e5isten#e of a $alid marriage %et"een 0osep! Sr. and Epifania. .oreo$er' t!ere "as
no de#ree of dissolution of marriage' nor of t!eir #on-ugal partners!ip.
&A MES. Supreme Court !eld t!at t!e #ontra#t of sale "as null and $oid for %eing #ontrary to
morals and pu%li# poli#y. !e sale "as made %y a !us%and in fa$or of !is #on#u%ine.
777777777777777
Ca!2!2-Ca"0a) ,)- Fort0"
June 22, 198-, Melencio.Herrera, J /0arl 1andoy2
!a%ure0
Petition for #ertiorari to re$ie" t!e de#ision of t!e CG6 of Pangasinan
*ac%s0
.er#edes Calimlim-Canullas @petitionerA and Gernando Canullas "ere married Je# 19' 19/&. !ey
%egot 5 ,ids. !ey li$ed in a !ouse on t!e residential land in )uestion' lo#ated at ?a#a%a#' ?ugallon'
Pangasinan. After GernandoQs dad died in 19/5' !e in!erited t!e land. 6n 199=' Gernando a%andoned
t!is family and li$ed "it! Corazon Jaguines @pri$ate 8espondentA Juring t!e penden#y of t!is appeal'
t!ey "ere #on$i#ted of #on#u%inage %y t!e CG6' "!i#! -udgment !ad %e#ome fnal. Kn april 15' 19=1'
Gernando sold t!e su%-e#t property "it! t!e !ouse t!ereon to Corazon Jaguines for t!e sum of P&111.
6n t!e deed of sale' Gernando des#ri%ed t!e !ouse as Xalso in!erited %y me from my de#eased
parentsY. Corazon !o"e$er "as una%le to ta,e possession of t!e !ouse and lot %e#ause of .er#edes'
so s!e initiated a #omplaint against .er#edes for t!e )uieting of title and for damages. .er#edes
#laims t!at t!e !ouse in dispute "!ere s!e and !er #!ildren "ere residing' in#luding t!e #o#onut trees
on t!e land' "ere %uilt and planted "it! #on-ugal funds and t!roug! !er industry4 s!e also #laims t!at
1( | P a g e
t!e sale of land toget!er "it! t!e !ouse and impro$ements to Corazon "as null and $oid %e#ause t!ey
are CK:0B*AL P8KPE86ES and s!e !ad :K *6FE: CK:SE: to t!e sale.
!e original -udgment de#lared Corazon as t!e la"ful o"ner of t!e land in )uestion as "ell as t!e V of
t!e !ouse ere#ted on said lands. Bpon re#onsideration prayed for %y .er#edes' respondent #ourt
amended t!e prior de#ision and resol$ed t!at t!e plainti3 @CorazonA is @stillA t!e true o"ner of t!e land
in )uestion and t!e 11 #o#onut trees' @%utA de#lared t!e sale of t!e #on-ugal !ouse to plainti3 in#luding
3 #o#onut trees and ot!er #rops planted during t!e #on-ugal relation %et"een Gernando Canullas and
!is legitimate "ife @.er#edesA. +en#e t!is #ase<
1ssues2+el,2Ra%io0
1A DK: t!e #onstru#tion of a #on-ugal !ouse on t!e e5#lusi$e property of t!e !us%and ipso fa#to ga$e
t!e land t!e #!ara#ter of #on-ugal property
Mes. A #orre#t interpretation of Art 15=35 yields t!at< ?ot! t!e land and t!e %uilding %elong to t!e
#on-ugal partners!ip %ut t!e #on-ugal partners!ip is inde%ted to t!e !us%and for t!e $alue of t!e land.
!e spouse o"ning t!e lot %e#omes a #reditor of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip for t!e $alue of t!e lot'
"!i#! $alue "ould %e reim%ursed at t!e li)uidation of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. Gernando #ould not
!a$e alienated t!e !ouse lot to Corazon sin#e .er#edes !ad not gi$en !er #onsent to said sale.
@&A DK: t!e sale of t!e lot toget!er "it! t!e !ouse and impro$ements t!ereon "as $alid under t!e
#ir#umstan#es surrounding t!e transa#tion :o' t!e #ontra#t of sale "as null and $oid for %eing #ontrary
to morals and pu%li# poli#y. !e sale "as made %y a !us%and in fa$or of a #on#u%ine after !e !ad
a%andoned !is family and left t!e #on-ugal !ome "!ere !is "ife and #!ildren li$ed and from "!en#e
t!ey deri$ed t!eir support. !e sale "as su%$ersi$e of t!e sta%ility of t!e family. As pro$ided %y Art
1(19' #ontra#ts su#! as t!is s!all %e $oid and ine5istent. Also' art 135& states #ontra#ts "it! unla"ful
#ause produ#e no e3e#t "!atsoe$er. Additionally' t!e la" emp!ati#ally pro!i%its t!e spouses from
donating or selling property to ea#! ot!er su%-e#t to #ertain e5#eptions. !is applies e$en to #ouples
"!o are not married %ut are li$ing Xas !us%and and "ifeY
35 ?uildings #onstru#ted at t!e e5pense of t!e partners!ip during t!e marriage on land %elonging to
one of t!e spouses also pertain to t!e partners!ip' %ut t!e $alue of t!e land s!all %e reim%ursed to t!e
spouse "!o o"ns t!e same. "&ere(ore, t&e decision o( res)ondent 3ud,e4 and &is resolution on
)etitioner5s *otion (or reconsideration4 are &ereby set aside and t&e sale o( t&e lot, &ouse and
i*)ro'e*ents in 6uestion, is &ereby declared null and 'oid.
777777777777777
ABALOS JS MACATANGAY$ ER-
*.8. :o. 1551(3 Septem%er 31 &11(
FACTS:
Spouses Arturo and Est!er A%alos are t!e registered o"ners of a par#el of land "it! impro$ements.
Arturo made a 8e#eipt and .emorandum of Agreement in fa$or of .a#atangay' %inding !imself to sell
to latter t!e su%-e#t property and not to o3er t!e same to any ot!er party "it!in 31 days from date.
Gull payment "ould also %e e3e#ted as soon as possession of t!e property s!all !a$e %een turned o$er
to .a#atangay. .a#atangay ga$e an earnest money amounting to P5'111.11 to %e dedu#ted from t!e
pur#!ase pri#e of P1'311'111.11 in fa$or of t!e spouses.
Su%se)uently' Arturo and Est!er !ad a marital s)ua%%le %re"ing at t!at time and .a#atangay' to
prote#t !is interest' made an annotation in t!e title of t!e property. +e t!en sent a letter informing
t!em of !is readiness to pay t!e full amount of t!e pur#!ase pri#e. Est!er' t!roug! !er SPA' e5e#uted
in fa$or of .a#atangay' a Contra#t to sell t!e property to t!e e5tent of !er #on-ugal interest for t!e
sum of P/51'111 less t!e sum already re#ei$ed %y !er and Arturo. S!e agreed to surrender t!e
property to .a#atangay "it!in &1 days along "it! t!e deed of a%solute sale upon full payment' "!ile
!e promised to pay t!e %alan#e of t!e pur#!ase pri#e for P1' &91'111.11 after %eing pla#ed in
possession of t!e property. .a#atangay informed t!em t!at !e "as ready to pay t!e amount in full.
!e #ouple failed to deli$er t!e property so !e sued t!e spouses.
8C dismissed t!e #omplaint' %e#ause t!e SPA #ould not !a$e aut!orized Arturo to sell t!e property to
.a#atangay as it "as falsifed. CA re$ersed t!e de#ision' ruling t!e SPA in fa$or of Arturo' assuming it
"as $oid' #annot a3e#t t!e transa#tion %et"een Est!er and .a#atangay. Kn t!e ot!er !and' t!e CA
#onsidered t!e 8.KA e5e#uted %y Arturo $alid to e3e#t t!e sale of !is #on-ugal s!are in t!e property.
ISSUE:
D!et!er or not t!e sale of property is $alid.
RULING:
:o. Arturo and Est!er appear to !a$e %een married %efore t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code. !ere
%eing no indi#ation t!at t!ey !a$e adopted a di3erent property regime' t!eir property relations "ould
automati#ally %e go$erned %y t!e regime of #on-ugal partners!ip of gains. !e su%-e#t land "!i#! !ad
%een admittedly a#)uired during t!e marriage of t!e spouses forms part of t!eir #on-ugal partners!ip.
15 | P a g e
Bnder t!e Ci$il Code' t!e !us%and is t!e administrator of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. !is rig!t is #learly
granted to !im %y la". .ore' t!e !us%and is t!e sole administrator. !e "ife is not entitled as of rig!t
to -oint administration.
!e !us%and' e$en if !e is statutorily designated as administrator of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' #annot
$alidly alienate or en#um%er any real property of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip "it!out t!e "ife2s #onsent.
Similarly' t!e "ife #annot dispose of any property %elonging to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip "it!out t!e
#onformity of t!e !us%and. !e la" is e5pli#it t!at t!e "ife #annot %ind t!e #on-ugal partners!ip
"it!out t!e !us%and2s #onsent' e5#ept in #ases pro$ided %y la".
.ore signif#antly' it !as %een !eld t!at prior to t!e li)uidation of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' t!e interest
of ea#! spouse in t!e #on-ugal assets is in#!oate' a mere e5pe#tan#y' "!i#! #onstitutes neit!er a legal
nor an e)uita%le estate' and does not ripen into title until it appears t!at t!ere are assets in t!e
#ommunity as a result of t!e li)uidation and settlement. !e interest of ea#! spouse is limited to t!e
net remainder or Hre*anente li6uidoI @&aber ,anancialA resulting from t!e li)uidation of t!e a3airs of
t!e partners!ip after its dissolution. !us' t!e rig!t of t!e !us%and or "ife to one-!alf of t!e #on-ugal
assets does not $est until t!e dissolution and li)uidation of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' or after
dissolution of t!e marriage' "!en it is fnally determined t!at' after settlement of #on-ugal o%ligations'
t!ere are net assets left "!i#! #an %e di$ided %et"een t!e spouses or t!eir respe#ti$e !eirs.
!e Gamily Code !as introdu#ed some #!anges parti#ularly on t!e aspe#t of t!e administration of t!e
#on-ugal partners!ip. !e ne" la" pro$ides t!at t!e administration of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip is no"
a -oint underta,ing of t!e !us%and and t!e "ife. 6n t!e e$ent t!at one spouse is in#apa#itated or
ot!er"ise una%le to parti#ipate in t!e administration of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' t!e ot!er spouse may
assume sole po"ers of administration. +o"e$er' t!e po"er of administration does not in#lude t!e
po"er to dispose or en#um%er property %elonging to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. 6n all instan#es' t!e
present la" spe#if#ally re)uires t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse' or aut!ority of t!e #ourt for
t!e disposition or en#um%ran#e of #on-ugal partners!ip property "it!out "!i#!' t!e disposition or
en#um%ran#e s!all %e $oid.
6nes#apa%ly' !erein Arturo2s a#tion for spe#if# performan#e must fail. E$en on t!e supposition t!at t!e
parties only disposed of t!eir respe#ti$e s!ares in t!e property' t!e sale' assuming t!at it e5ists' is still
$oid for as pre$iously stated' t!e rig!t of t!e !us%and or t!e "ife to one-!alf of t!e #on-ugal assets
does not $est until t!e li)uidation of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. e*o dat 6ui non &abet. :o one #an
gi$e "!at !e !as not.
7777777777777

.A:ALK FS CA.A6SA
!e present #ontro$ersy !ad its %eginning "!en petitioner !elma A. 0ader-.analo allegedly #ame
a#ross an ad$ertisement pla#ed %y respondents' t!e Spouses :orma Gernandez C. Camaisa and
Edil%erto Camaisa' in t!e Classifed Ads Se#tion of t!e ne"spaper ?BLLE6: KJAM in its April'
199&issue' for t!e sale of t!eir ten-door apartment in .a,ati' as "ell as t!at in aytay' 8izal. Petitioner
"as interested in %uying t!e t"o properties so s!e negotiated for t!e pur#!ase t!roug! a real-estate
%ro,er' .r. Pro#eso Ereno' aut!orized %y respondent spouses.N1O Petitioner made a $isual inspe#tion of
t!e said lots "it! t!e real estate %ro,er and "as s!o"n t!e ta5 de#larations' real property ta5 payment
re#eipts' lo#ation plans' and $i#inity maps relating to t!e properties.N&O !ereafter' petitioner met "it!
t!e $endors "!o turned out to %e respondent spouses. S!e made a defnite o3er to %uy t!e properties
to respondent Edil%erto Camaisa "it! t!e ,no"ledge and #onformity of !is "ife' respondent :orma
Camaisa in t!e presen#e of t!e real estate %ro,er.N3O After some %argaining' petitioner and Edil%erto
agreed upon t!e pur#!ase pri#e of P1'511'111.11 for t!e aytay property andP&'111'111.11 for t!e
.a,ati propertyN(O to %e paid on installment %asis "it! do"n payments of P111'111.11 and
P&11'111.11' respe#ti$ely' on April 15' 199&.!is agreement "as !and"ritten %y petitioner and signed
%y Edil%erto.N/O D!en petitioner pointed out t!e #on-ugal nature of t!e properties' Edil%erto assured
!er of !is "ife s #onformity and #onsent to t!e sale. After Edil%erto signed t!e #ontra#ts' petitioner
deli$ered to !im t"o #!e#,s' in t!e presen#e of t!e real estate %ro,er and an employee in Edil%erto s
o;#e. !e #ontra#ts "ere gi$en to Edil%erto for t!e formal a;5ing of !is "ife2s signature. !e follo"ing
day' petitioner re#ei$ed a #all from respondent :orma' re)uesting a meeting to #larify some pro$isions
of t!e #ontra#ts. Juring t!e meeting' !and"ritten notations "ere made on t!e #ontra#ts to sell' so
t!ey arranged to in#orporate t!e notations and to meet again for t!e formal signing of t!e #ontra#ts.
D!en petitioner met again "it! respondent spouses and t!e real estate %ro,er at Edil%erto s offi#e
for t!e formal affi5ing of :orma s signature' s!e "as surprised "!en respondent spouses informed
!er t!at t!ey "ere %a#,ing out of t!e agreement %e#ause t!ey needed spot #as! for t!e full
amount of t!e #onsideration. Petitioner reminded respondent spouses t!at t!e #ontra#ts to sell !ad
already %een duly perfe#ted and :orma s refusal to sign t!e same "ould unduly pre-udi#e petitioner.
Still' :orma refused to sign t!e #ontra#ts prompting petitioner to fle a #omplaint for spe#if#
performan#e and damages against respondent spouses %efore t!e 8egional rial Court of .a,ati'
?ran#! 13/ on April &9' 199&' to #ompel respondent :orma Camaisa to sign t!e #ontra#ts to sell.Kn
K#to%er &1' 199&' respondent :orma G. Camaisa fled a .otion for Summary 0udgmentN&1O asserting
t!at t!ere is no genuine issue as to any material fa#t on t!e %asis of t!e pleadings and admission of
t!e parties #onsidering t!at t!e "ife s "ritten #onsent "as not o%tained in t!e #ontra#t to sell' t!e
su%-e#t #on-ugal properties %elonging to respondents4 !en#e' t!e #ontra#t "as null and $oid. !e Court
of Appeals e5plained t!at t!e properties su%-e#t of t!e #ontra#ts "as #on-ugal properties and as
1/ | P a g e
su#!' t!e #onsent of %ot! spouses is ne#essary to gi$e e3e#t to t!e sale. Sin#e pri$ate respondent
:orma Camaisa refused to sign t!e #ontra#ts' t!e sale "as ne$er perfe#ted. 6n fa#t' t!e do"npayment
"as returned %y respondent spouses and "as a##epted %y petitioner. !e Court of Appeals also
stressed t!at t!e aut!ority of t!e #ourt to allo" sale or en#um%ran#e of a #on-ugalproperty "it!out t!e
#onsent of t!e ot!er spouse is appli#a%le only in #ases "!ere t!e said spouse isin#apa#itated or
ot!er"ise una%le to parti#ipate in t!e administration of t!e #on-ugal property.
6SSBE<
!e issue raised in t!is #ase is "!et!er or not t!e !us%and may $alidly dispose of a #on-ugal property
"it!out t!e "ife2s "ritten #onsent.
+ELJ<
!e Court does not fnd error in t!e de#isions of %ot! t!e trial #ourt and t!e Court of Appeals. !e la"
re)uires t!at t!e disposition of a #on-ugal property %y t!e !us%and as administrator inappropriate
#ases re)uires t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e "ife' ot!er"ise' t!e disposition is $oid. !e properties su%-e#t
of t!e #ontra#ts in t!is #ase "as #on-ugal4 !en#e' for t!e #ontra#ts to sell to %e e3e#ti$e' t!e #onsent
of %ot! !us%and and "ife must #on#ur. 8espondent :orma may !a$e %een a"are of t!e negotiations
for t!e sale of t!eir #on-ugal properties. +o"e$er' %eing merely a"are of transa#tion is not #onsent.
Ginally' petitioner argues t!at sin#e respondent :orma un-ustly refuses to a;5 !er signatures to t!e
#ontra#ts to sell' #ourt aut!orization under Arti#le 1&( of t!e Gamily Code is "arranted. !e argument
is %ereft of merit. Petitioner is #orre#t insofar as s!e alleges t!at if t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er
spouse #annot %e o%tained or is %eing "it!!eld' t!e matter may %e %roug!t to #ourt "!i#! "ill gi$e
su#! aut!ority if t!e same is "arranted %y t!e #ir#umstan#es. +o"e$er' it s!ould %e stressed t!at
#ourt aut!orization under Art. 1&( is only resorted to in #ases "!ere t!e spouse "!o does not gi$e
#onsent is in#apa#itated.N&/O 6n t!is #ase' petitioner failed to allege and pro$e t!at respondent :orma
"as in#apa#itated to gi$e !er #onsent to t!e #ontra#ts. 6n t!e a%sen#e of su#! s!o"ing of t!e
"ife sin#apa#ity' #ourt aut!orization #annot %e soug!t. Bnder t!e foregoing fa#ts' t!e motion for
summary -udgment "as proper #onsidering t!at t!ere "as no genuine issue as to any material
fa#t. !e only issue to %e resol$ed %y t!e trial #ourt "as "!et!er t!e #ontra#t to sell in$ol$ing #on-ugal
properties "as $alid "it!out t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e "ife. D+E8EGK8E' t!e petition is !ere%y
JE:6EJ and t!e de#ision of t!e Court of Appeals dated :o$em%er&9' &111 in CA-*.8. CF :o.
(3(&1 AGG68.EJ.
7777777777777777777777777
PELAYO JS PEREQ$ G-R NO- ;H;464 EUNE G$6>>?
FACTS:
Ja$id Pelayo sold t"o par#els of agri#ultural land lo#ated in Pana%o to mrl,i Perez on 0anuary 19== And
t!e sale is e$iden#ed %y a deed of A%solute Sale and Loreza Pelayo' "ife of Ja$id and anot!er one
"!ose signature is illegi%le "itnessed t!e e5e#ution of t!e deed. .rsPelayo signed only t!e t!ird spa#e
in t!e spa#e pro$ided for t!e "itness' Perez as,ed Loreza to sign on t!e frst and se#ond pages %ut t!e
latter refused as a result' .r Perez instituted ana#tion for spe#if# performan#e and Perez #ountered
t!at t!e lots "ere gi$en to !im %y defendant Pelayo in #onsideration of !is ser$i#es as !is attorney-in
fa#t to ma,e t!e ne#essary representation and negotiation "it! t!e illegal o##upants-defendants in t!e
e-e#tment #ase. Jefendant Pelayo said t!at t!e deed "as "it!out t!e #onsent og .rs perez and
in$o,ed Art 1//of t!e Ci$il #ode to support !is argument.
ISSUE:
Jid .rs Pelayo e5press !is #onsent in t!e deed of Sale e5e#uted %y .rs PelayoZ
.EL/:
!e #onsent need not %e e5pressed. 6t #an %e implied. 6n t!e present #ase' alt!oug! it appears on t!e
fa#e of t!e deed of sale t!at Lorenza signed only as an instrumental "itness' #ir#umstan#es leading to
t!e e5e#ution of said do#ument point to t!e fa#t t!at Lorenza "as fully a"are of t!e sale of t!eir
#on-ugal property and #onsented to t!e sal. !e petition of .r. and .rs Pelayo "as denied.
777777777777777
RAJINA J JILLA-ABRILLE G-R- NO ;<>5>G OCTOBER ;<$ 6>>=
FACTS:
.ary Ann Pasaol Filla A%rille and Pedro Filla A%rille are !us%and and "ife. 6n 19=&' t!e spouses
a#)uired lot 9 in Ja$ao City "it! C -==/9( in t!eir names. Said lot "as ad-a#ent to lot = "!i#!
Pedro a#)uired "!en !e "as still single and "as registered solely under !is name @C -&/(91A
Spouses used t!eir #on-ugal funds and loan from J?P to %uild a !ouse on 9 and Pedro2s lot.
Conse)uently' t!ey made impro$ements' in#luding a poultry !ouse and an anne5
1991 R !e !us%and got a mistress and started to negle#t !is family. !e "ife "as for#ed to
sell or mortgage t!eir mo$a%les to support t!e family.
Kn !is o"n' t!e !us%and "anted to dispose of t!e !ouse and t"o lots to t!e petitioners
Patro#inia and Dilfredo 8a$ina. !e "ife opposed %ut t!e !us%and still sold t!e property
"it!out t!e "ife2s #onsent and signature
19 | P a g e
0uly 5' 1991 R D!ile t!e "ife and #!ildren "ere out' t!e !us%and and some CAG*B mem%ers
transferred all t!eir %elongings from t!e !ouse to an apartment. D!en t!ey got !ome' t!e
"ere pre$ented from entering t!e !ouse. !us' t!e "ife fled a #omplaint for t!e annulment of
sale "it! damages against t!e !us%and and t!e petitioners.
Juring t!e trial' t!e !us%and alleged t!at t!e !ouse "as %uilt from !is e5#lusi$e funds
Septem%er &/' 1995 R 8C ruled in fa$or of t!e "ife' de#laring t!at t!e sale of lot = "as $oid'
%eing a #on-ugal property "!ile t!e sale of lot 9 "as $alid sin#e it "as t!e !us%and2s e5#lusi$e
property
CA de#lared t!at< sale of lot 9 to petitioners is $alid %ut t!e sale of lot = is null and $oid4 t!at
t!e !us%and is ordered to return t!e $alue of t!e #onsideration for lot = to petitioners4 t!at
petitioners are ordered to re#on$ey t!e !ouse and lot to t!e "ife
ISSUE: D!et!er or not t!e !us%and #an sell a property "!i#! is part e5#lusi$e and part #on-ugal
.EL/:
Art. 1/1 :CC pro$ides t!at Hall property of t!e marriage is presumed to %elong to t!e #on-ugal
partners!ip' unless it is pro$en t!at it pertains e5#lusi$ely to t!e !us%and or to t!e "ife.I Lot 9 is an
e5#lusi$e property of t!e !us%and sin#e it "as a#)uired prior to !is marriage "it! t!e respondent.
+o"e$er lot = "as a#)uired in 19=3 during t!e marriage of t!e spouses. !ere is no e$iden#e pro$ing
t!at t!e su%-e#t property "as a#)uired t!roug! e5#!ange or %arter. !e presumption of t!e #on-ugal
nature of t!e property su%sists in t!e a%sen#e of and #on$in#ing e$iden#e to o$er #ome t!e
presumption.

A sale or en#um%ran#e of #on-ugal property #on#luded after t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code on
August 3' 19== is go$erned %y Art. 1&( GC "!i#! states t!at a disposition or en#um%ran#e is $oid if
done a- *!tho0t the 'o")e"t of %oth the h0)%a"d a"d *!fe $ orP %- !" 'a)e of o"e )po0)e3)
!"a%!!t+$ the a0thor!t+ of the 'o0rt-
A8. 1&(. !e administration and en-oyment of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip property s!all %elong to %ot!
spouses -ointly. 6n #ase of disagreement' t!e !us%and2s de#i"ision s!all pre$ail' su%-e#t to re#ourse to
t!e #ourt %y t!e "ife for proper remedy "!i#! must %e a$ailed of "it!in f$e years from t!e date of t!e
#ontra#t implementing su#! de#ision.
6n t!e e$ent t!at one spouse is in#apa#itated or ot!er"ise una%le to parti#ipate in t!e administration
of t!e #on-ugal properties' t!e ot!er spouse may assume sole po"ers of administration. !ese po"ers
do not in#lude t!e po"ers of disposition or en#um%ran#e "!i#! must !a$e t!e aut!ority of t!e #ourt or
t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse. 6n t!e a%sen#e of su#! aut!ority or #onsent' t!e disposition or
en#um%ran#e s!all %e $oid. +o"e$er' t!e transa#tion s!all %e #onstrued as a #ontinuing o3er on t!e
part of t!e #onsenting spouse and t!e t!ird person' and may %e perfe#ted as a %inding #ontra#t upon
t!e a##eptan#e %y t!e ot!er spouse or aut!orization %y t!e #ourt %efore t!e o3er is "it!dra"n %y
eit!er or %ot! o3erors. @Emp!asis supplied.A
Bnli,e in t!e :CC "!i#! gi$es t!e "ife 11 years to annul t!e alienation or en#um%ran#e' any alienation
or en#um%ran#e under t!e GC "it!out t!e #onsent of %ot! spouses is :BLL A:J FK6J. 0ust li,e in ACP'
if t!e !us%and' "it!out t!e ,no"ledge and #onsent of t!e "ife' sells #on-ugal property' t!e sale is $oid.
6f t!e sale "as "it! ,no"ledge t!e not #onsent of t!e "ife' t!e "ife !as 5 years from t!e date of t!e
#ontra#t to annul t!e sale.
6n t!e present #ase' t!e "ife fled "it!in t!e pres#ri%ed period. +o"e$er' !er a#tion to annul t!e sale
pertains only to t!e #on-ugal !ouse and lot "!i#! does not in#lude lot 9 "!i#! is an e5#lusi$e property
of t!e !us%and.
!e petitioners #annot argue t!at t!ey "ere %uyers of good fait! sin#e t!ey ,ne" t!at at t!e time of
t!e sale' Pedro "as married to .ary Ann and !er signature did not appear in t!e deed. E$en if t!ey
"ere to argue t!at t!e property is an e5#lusi$e property of t!e !us%and' t!at t!ey pro#eeded "it! t!e
sale regardless of t!e "ife2s #ontention and t!at t!e s!e "as in a#tual and pu%li# possession of t!e
!ouse at t!e time of t!e sale' #learly indi#ates t!at t!ey are not pur#!asers in good fait!. CA
JEC6S6K: AGG68.EJ.
777777777777777777777
SECURITY BANO AN/ TRUST COMPANY ,- MAR TIERRA CORP$ WILFRI/O MARTINEQ$ MIGUEL
LACSON$ a"d RICAR/O LOPA
:o$em%er &9' &11/ @51= SC8A (19A
GACS<
8espondent .ar ierra Corporation' t!roug! its president' Dilfrido C. .artinez' applied for a
P1&'111'111 #redit a##ommodation "it! petitioner Se#urity ?an, and rust Company. Petitioner
appro$ed t!e appli#ation and entered into a #redit line agreement "it! respondent #orporation. 6t "as
se#ured %y an indemnity agreement e5e#uted %y indi$idual respondents Dilfrido C. .artinez' .iguel 0.
La#son and 8i#ardo A. Lopa "!o %ound t!emsel$es -ointly and se$erally "it! respondent #orporation
for t!e payment of t!e loan.
8espondent #orporation "as not a%le to pay all its de%t %alan#e as it su3ered %usiness re$ersals'
e$entually #easing operations. Petitioner fled a #omplaint against respondent #orp and indi$idual
respondents.
1= | P a g e
8C issued a "rit of atta#!ment on all real and personal properties of respondent #orporation and
indi$idual respondent .artinez in#luding t!e #on-ugal !ouse and lot of t!e spouses %ut it found t!at it
did not redound to t!e %eneft of !is family' !en#e' it ordered t!e lifting of t!e atta#!ment on t!e
#on-ugal !ouse and lot of t!e spouses .artinez.
Petitioner appealed to CA. 6t a;rmed 8C de#ision. Petitioned to SC.
6SSBE<
DK: t!e #on-ugal partners!ip may %e !eld lia%le for an indemnity agreement entered into %y t!e
!us%and to a##ommodate a t!ird party
+ELJ<
:o. SC up!eld t!e CA. Bnder Arti#le 1/1@1A of t!e Ci$il Code' t!e #on-ugal partners!ip is lia%le for Hall
de%ts and o%ligations #ontra#ted %y t!e !us%and for t!e %eneft of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.I
!e #ourt ruled in Luzon Surety Co.' 6n#. $. de *ar#ia t!at' in a#ting as a guarantor or surety for
anot!er' t!e !us%and does not a#t for t!e %eneft of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip as t!e %eneft is #learly
intended for a t!ird party.
6n Ayala 6n$estment and Je$elopment Corporation $. Court of Appeals' "e ruled t!at' if t!e !us%and
!imself is t!e prin#ipal o%ligor in t!e #ontra#t' i.e.' t!e dire#t re#ipient of t!e money and ser$i#es to %e
used in or for !is o"n %usiness or profession' t!e transa#tion falls "it!in t!e term Ho%ligations for t!e
%eneft of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.I 6n ot!er "ords' "!ere t!e !us%and #ontra#ts an o%ligation on
%e!alf of t!e family %usiness' t!ere is a legal presumption t!at su#! o%ligation redounds to t!e %eneft
of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.
Kn t!e ot!er !and' if t!e money or ser$i#es are gi$en to anot!er person or entity and t!e !us%and
a#ted only as a surety or guarantor' t!e transa#tion #annot %y itself %e deemed an o%ligation for t!e
%eneft of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. 6t is for t!e %eneft of t!e prin#ipal de%tor and not for t!e surety or
!is family.
6n t!e #ase at %ar' t!e prin#ipal #ontra#t' t!e #redit line agreement %et"een petitioner and respondent
#orporation' "as solely for t!e %eneft of t!e latter. !e a##essory #ontra#t @t!e indemnity agreementA
under "!i#! indi$idual respondent .artinez assumed t!e o%ligation of a surety for respondent
#orporation "as similarly for t!e latter2s %eneft. Petitioner !ad t!e %urden of pro$ing t!at t!e #on-ugal
partners!ip of t!e spouses .artinez %enefted from t!e transa#tion. 6t failed to dis#!arge t!at %urden.
7777777777777777
Can2t Gind Glora $s Prado
777777777777777
.OMEOWNERS SAJINGS R LOAN BANO vs- MIGUELA C- /AILO$
G-R- No- ;?4G>6
Mar'h ;;$ 6>>?
FACTS: .iguela Jailo and .ar#elino Jailo' 0r "ere married on August =' 19/9. Juring t!eir marriage
t!e spouses pur#!ased a !ouse and lot situated at San Pa%lo City from a #ertain Jalida. !e su%-e#t
property "as de#lared for ta5 assessment purposes !e Jeed of A%solute Sale' !o"e$er' "as
e5e#uted o"+ !" fa,or of the ate Mar'e!"o /a!o$ Er- a) ,e"dee t!ereof to t!e e5#lusion of !is
"ife.
.ar#elino Jailo' 0r. e5e#uted a Spe#ial Po"er of Attorney @SPAA in fa$or of one *esmundo' aut!orizing
t!e latter to o%tain a loan from petitioner +omeo"ners Sa$ings and Loan ?an, to %e se#ured %y t!e
spouses Jailo2s !ouse and lot in San Pa%lo City. Pursuant to t!e SPA' *esmundo o%tained a loan from
petitioner. As se#urity t!erefor' *esmundo e5e#uted on t!e same day a 8eal Estate .ortgage
#onstituted on t!e su%-e#t property in fa$or of petitioner. !e a%o$ementioned transa#tions' in#luding
t!e e5e#ution of t!e SPA in fa$or of *esmundo' too, pla#e *!tho0t t!e ,no"ledge and #onsent of
respondent.N
Bpon maturity' t!e loan remained outstanding. As a result' petitioner instituted e5tra-udi#ial
fore#losure pro#eedings on t!e mortgaged property. After t!e e5tra-udi#ial sale t!ereof' a Certif#ate of
Sale "as issued in fa$or of petitioner as t!e !ig!est %idder. After t!e lapse of one year "it!out t!e
property %eing redeemed' petitioner #onsolidated t!e o"ners!ip t!ereof %y e5e#uting an A;da$it of
Consolidation of K"ners!ip and a Jeed of A%solute Sale.
6n t!e meantime' .ar#elino Jailo' 0r. died. 6n one of !er $isits to t!e su%-e#t property' .iguela learned
t!at petitioner !ad already employed a #ertain ?rion to #lean its premises and t!at !er #ar' a Gord
sedan' "as razed %e#ause ?rion allo"ed a %oy to play "it! fre "it!in t!e premises.
Claiming t!at s!e !ad no ,no"ledge of t!e mortgage #onstituted on t!e su%-e#t property' "!i#! "as
#on-ugal in nature' respondent instituted "it! t!e 8C San Pa%lo City a Ci$il Case for ullity o( $eal
#state Mort,a,e and 8erti9cate o( !ale, A:da'it o( 8onsolidation o( ;+ners&i), Deed o( !ale,
$econ'eyance +it& <rayer (or <reli*inary =n3unction and Da*a,es against petitioner. 6n t!e
latter2s Ans+er +it& 8ounterclai*' petitioner prayed for t!e dismissal of t!e #omplaint on t!e ground
t!at t!e property in )uestion "as t!e e5#lusi$e property of t!e late .ar#elino Jailo' 0r.
After trial on t!e merits' t!e trial #ourt rendered a Decision de#laring t!e said do#uments null and $oid
and furt!er ordered t!e defendant is ordered to re#on$ey t!e property su%-e#t of t!is #omplaint to t!e
plainti3' to pay t!e plainti3 t!e sum representing t!e $alue of t!e #ar "!i#! "as %urned' t!e
attorney2s fees' moral and e5emplary damages.
!e appellate #ourt a;rmed t!e trial #ourt2s Decision' %ut deleted t!e a"ard for damages and
attorney2s fees for la#, of %asis. +en#e' t!is petition

ISSUE:
1. DK: +E .K8*A*E CK:S6BEJ ?M +E LAE .A8CEL6:K JA6LK' 08. K: +E SB?0EC P8KPE8M
AS CK-KD:E8 +E8EKG 6S FAL6J AS K +6S B:J6F6JEJ S+A8E.
19 | P a g e
&. DK: +E CK:0B*AL PA8:E8S+6P 6S L6A?LE GK8 +E PAM.E: KG +E LKA: K?A6:EJ ?M +E
LAE .A8CEL6:K JA6LK' 08. +E SA.E +AF6:* 8EJKB:JEJ K +E ?E:EG6 KG +E GA.6LM.
.EL/: t!e petition is denied.
1. :K. Arti#le 1&( of t!e Gamily Code pro$ides in part<
A8. 1&(. !e administration and en-oyment of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip property s!all %elong to %ot!
spouses -ointly. . . .
6n t!e e$ent t!at one spouse is in#apa#itated or ot!er"ise una%le to parti#ipate in t!e administration
of t!e #on-ugal properties' t!e ot!er spouse may assume sole po"ers of administration. !ese po"ers
do not in#lude t!e po"ers of disposition or en#um%ran#e "!i#! must !a$e t!e aut!ority of t!e #ourt or
t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse. 6n t!e a%sen#e of su#! aut!ority or #onsent' t!e disposition or
en#um%ran#e s!all %e $oid. . . .
6n applying Arti#le 1&( of t!e Gamily Code' t!is Court de#lared t!at t!e a%sen#e of t!e #onsent of one
renders t!e entire sale null and $oid' in#luding t!e portion of t!e #on-ugal property pertaining to t!e
!us%and "!o #ontra#ted t!e sale.
8espondent and t!e late .ar#elino "ere married on August =' 19/9. 6n t!e a%sen#e of a marriage
settlement' t!e system of relati$e #ommunity or 'o"C0(a part"er)h!p of (a!") (o,er"ed the
propert+ reat!o") %et"een respondent and !er late !us%and. Dit! t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code
on August 3' 19==' C!apter ( on 8on3u,al <artners&i) o( >ains in t!e Gamily Code "as 2ade
app!'a%e to #on-ugal partners!ip of gains aread+ e)ta%!)hed %efore !t) e#e't!,!t+ unless
$ested rig!ts !a$e already %een a#)uired under t!e Ci$il Code or ot!er la"s.
!e rules on #o-o"ners!ip do not e$en apply to t!e property relations of respondent and t!e late
.ar#elino e$en in a suppletory manner. The re(!2e of 'o"C0(a part"er)h!p of (a!") !) a )pe'!a
t+pe of part"er)h!p$ "!ere t!e !us%and and "ife pla#e in a #ommon fund t!e pro#eeds' produ#ts'
fruits and in#ome from t!eir separate properties and t!ose a#)uired %y eit!er or %ot! spouses t!roug!
t!eir e3orts or %y #!an#e. Bnli,e t!e a%solute #ommunity of property "!erein t!e rules on #o-
o"ners!ip apply in a suppletory manner' t!e #on-ugal partners!ip s!all %e go$erned %y t!e rules on
#ontra#t of partners!ip in all t!at is not in #onTi#t "it! "!at is e5pressly determined in t!e #!apter @on
#on-ugal partners!ip of gainsA or %y t!e spouses in t!eir marriage settlements. !us' t!e property
relations of respondent and !er late !us%and s!all %e go$erned' foremost' %y C!apter ( on 8on3u,al
<artners&i) o( >ains of t!e Gamily Code and' suppletorily' %y t!e rules on partners!ip under t!e Ci$il
Code. 6n #ase of #onTi#t' t!e former pre$ails %e#ause t!e Ci$il Code pro$isions on partners!ip apply
only "!en t!e Gamily Code is silent on t!e matter.
!e %asi# and esta%lis!ed fa#t is t!at during !is lifetime' "it!out t!e ,no"ledge and #onsent of !is
"ife' .ar#elino #onstituted a real estate mortgage on t!e su%-e#t property' "!i#! formed part of t!eir
#on-ugal partners!ip. ?y e5press pro$ision of Arti#le 1&( of t!e Gamily Code' in t!e a%sen#e of @#ourtA
aut!ority or "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse' any disposition or en#um%ran#e of t!e #on-ugal
property s!all %e $oid.
!e afore )uoted pro$ision does not )ualify "it! respe#t to t!e s!are of t!e spouse "!o ma,es t!e
disposition or en#um%ran#e in t!e same manner t!at t!e rule on #o-o"ners!ip under Arti#le (93 of t!e
Ci$il Code does. D!ere t!e la" does not distinguis!' #ourts s!ould not distinguis!. !us' %ot! t!e trial
#ourt and t!e appellate #ourt are #orre#t in de#laring t!e nullity of t!e real estate mortgage on t!e
su%-e#t property for la#, of respondent2s #onsent.
&. :K. Bnder Arti#le 1&1 of t!e Gamily Code' HNO!e #on-ugal partners!ip s!all %e lia%le for< . . .
@1A Je%ts and o%ligations #ontra#ted %y eit!er spouse "it!out t!e #onsent of t!e ot!er to t!e
e5tent t!at t!e family may !a$e %een %enefted4 . . . .I
Certainly' to ma,e a #on-ugal partners!ip respond for a lia%ility t!at s!ould appertain to t!e !us%and
alone is to defeat and frustrate t!e a$o"ed o%-e#ti$e of t!e ne" Ci$il Code to s!o" t!e utmost #on#ern
for t!e solidarity and "ell-%eing of t!e family as a unit.N
!e %urden of proof t!at t!e de%t "as #ontra#ted for t!e %eneft of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip of gains
lies "it! t!e #reditor-party litigant #laiming as su#!. #i incu*bit )robatio 6ui dicit, non 6ui ne,at @!e
"!o asserts' not !e "!o denies' must pro$eA. Petitioner2s s"eeping #on#lusion t!at t!e loan o%tained
%y t!e late .ar#elino to fnan#e t!e #onstru#tion of !ousing units "it!out a dou%t redounded to t!e
%eneft of !is family' "it!out addu#ing ade)uate proof' does not persuade t!is Court. Conse)uently'
t!e #on-ugal partners!ip #annot %e !eld lia%le for t!e payment of t!e prin#ipal o%ligation.
NOTES:
6n addition' a perusal of t!e re#ords of t!e #ase re$eals t!at during t!e trial' petitioner $igorously
asserted t!at t!e su%-e#t property "as t!e e5#lusi$e property of t!e late .ar#elino Jailo' 0r. :o"!ere in
t!e ans"er fled "it! t!e trial #ourt "as it alleged t!at t!e pro#eeds of t!e loan redounded to t!e
%eneft of t!e family. E$en on appeal' petitioner ne$er #laimed t!at t!e family %enefted from t!e
pro#eeds of t!e loan. D!en a party adopts a #ertain t!eory in t!e #ourt %elo"' !e "ill not %e permitted
to #!ange !is t!eory on appeal' for to permit !im to do so "ould not only %e unfair to t!e ot!er party
%ut it "ould also %e o3ensi$e to t!e %asi# rules of fair play' -usti#e and due pro#ess. A party may
#!ange !is legal t!eory on appeal only "!en t!e fa#tual %ases t!ereof "ould not re)uire presentation
of any f0rther e,!de"'e %y t!e ad$erse party in order to ena%le it to properly meet t!e issue raised
in t!e ne" t!eory.
7777777777777777
4umlos vs *er.a.,ez
R !o. 137'5#, April 1(, (###
FACTS:
.ario and Lourdes Gernandez "ere plainti3s in an a#tion for e-e#tment fled against *uillerma' *ina
and oto umlos. 6n t!e #omplaint' spouses Gernandez alleged t!at t!ey are t!e a%solute o"ners of an
&1 | P a g e
apartment %uilding t!at t!roug! t!eir toleran#e t!ey allo"ed t!e umlos2 to o##upy t!e apartment for
t!e last 9 years "it!out payment of any rent. 6t "as agreed t!at *uillerma "ill pay 1'/11 a mont!
"!ile t!e ot!er defendants promised to pay 1'111 a mont! "!i#! "as not #omplied "it!. Jemand "as
made se$eral times for t!e defendants to $a#ate t!e premises as t!ey are in need of t!e property for
t!e #onstru#tion of a ne" %uilding.
Jefendants appealed to 8C t!at .ario and *uillerma !ad an amorous relations!ip and t!at t!ey
a#)uired t!e property in )uestion as t!eir lo$e nest. 6t "as li,e"ise alleged t!at t!ey li$ed toget!er in
t!e said apartment %uilding "it! t!eir & #!ildren for a%out 11 years and t!at *ullerma administered
t!e property %y #olle#ting rentals from t!e lessees until s!e dis#o$ered t!at .ario de#ei$ed !er as to
t!e annulment of t!eir marriage.
ISSUE: DK: *uillerma is a #o-o"ner of t!e said apartment under Arti#le 1(=.
.EL/:
SC re-e#ted t!e #laim t!at *uillerma and .ario "ere #o-o"ners of t!e su%-e#t property. !e #laim "as
not satisfa#torily pro$en %y *uillerma sin#e t!ere "ere no ot!er e$iden#e presented to $alidate it
e5#ept for t!e said a;da$it. E$en if t!e allegations of !a$ing #o!a%ited "it! .ario and t!at s!e %ore
!im t"o #!ildren "ere true' t!e #laim of #o-o"ners!ip still #annot %e a##epted. .ario is $alidly
married "it! Lourdes !en#e *uillerma and .ario are not #apa#itated to marry ea#! ot!er. !e
property relation go$erning t!eir supposed #o!a%itation is under Arti#le 1(= of t!e Gamily Code. A#tual
#ontri%ution is re)uired %y t!e said pro$ision in #ontrast to Art 1(9 "!i#! states t!at e3orts in t!e #are
and maintenan#e of t!e family and !ouse!old are regarded as #ontri%utions to t!e a#)uisitions of
#ommon property %y one "!o !as no salary' in#ome' "or, or industry. Su#! is not in#luded in Art 1(=.
6f a#tual #ontri%ution is not pro$en t!en t!ere #an %e no #o-o"ners!ip and no presumption of e)ual
s!ares.
7777777777777777777
ACRE JS YUTIOOI &119
- ?eatriz A#re and Sofronio A#re' 0r. married on :o$em%er =' 1959. +a$e / #!ildren @petitionersA
- 199& R Sofronio left #on-ugal d"elling
- Petitioners fnd out t!at Sofronio married E$angeline Mutti,,i .ay 1=' 199&' "!ile still married to
?eatriz
- Sofronio dies :o$ 1/' 199/
- Juring respondentQs marriage "it! Sofronio t!ey a#)uired properties' one registered to XE$angeline
A#re married to Sofronio A#reY anot!er to XE. A#re' married to S. A#re and :. del .ar' married to 0ose
del .arY @:ellie is E$angelineQs sisterA
- Petitioners fle "it! 8C for re#o$ery of properties' saying Sofronio a#)uired it "> !is o"n funds
- C dismisses' saying t!at t!e properties are o"ned in #ommon %y E$angeline and Sofronio
- CA dismisses appeal as "ell' de#laring defendant- appellee e5#lusi$e o"ner
6ssue< D>n t!e CA erred in de#laring E$angeline t!e o"ner of t!e #ontested propertiesZ
+eld< :o. Petition denied' CA de#ision AGG68.EJ.
- !e marriage %et"een E$angeline and Sofronio is indeed %igamous' as su#! t!eir property regime is
under GC R 1(=
o Properties a#)uired %y t!e parties out of t!eir a#tual -oint #ontri%ution of money' property' or
industry s!all %e go$erned %y t!e rules on #o-o"ners!ip
o 6f t!ere is no #ontri%ution from eit!er or %ot! of t!e spouses' #learly t!ere #an %e no #o-o"ners!ip
- Petitioners did not present any e$iden#e t!at s!o"s Sofronio made an a't0a 'o"tr!%0t!o" !"
a'F0!r!"( the )a!d propert!e)- Cear+$ 'o-o*"er)h!p doe) "ot eD!)t here-
CA #orre#t in saying t!at t!e frst land in )uestion "as registered under XE$angeline A#re married to
Sofronio A#re' t!e se#ond land in )uestion under XE$angeline A#re married to Sofronio A#re' and :ellie
Jel .ar' married to 0ose Jel .arY R rule "ell settled t!at t!e "ords Xmarried toY pre#eding Sofronio
A#re 0r. are merely des#ripti$e of t!e status of E$angeline.
77777777777777777
Carlos vs. Abelar,o
R !o. 14'5#4, April 4, (##(
FACTS:
+onorio Carlos fled a petition against .anuel A%elardo' !is son-in-la" for re#o$ery of t!e [&5'111 loan
used to pur#!ase a !ouse and lot lo#ated at Parana)ue. 6t "as in K#to%er 19=9 "!en t!e petitioner
issued a #!e#, "ort! as su#! to assist t!e spouses in #ondu#ting t!eir married life independently. !e
seller of t!e property a#,no"ledged re#eipt of t!e full payment. 6n 0uly 1991' t!e petitioner in)uired
from spouses status of t!e amount loaned from !im' t!e spouses pleaded t!at t!ey "ere not yet in
position to ma,e a defnite settlement. !ereafter' respondent e5pressed $iolent resistan#e to t!e
e5tent of ma,ing $arious deat! t!reats against petitioner. 6n 199(' petitioner made a formal demand
%ut t!e spouses failed to #omply "it! t!e o%ligation. !e spouses "ere separated in fa#t for more
t!an a year prior t!e fling of t!e #omplaint !en#e spouses fled separate ans"ers. A%elardo
#ontended t!at t!e amount "as ne$er intended as a loan %ut !is s!are of in#ome on #ontra#ts
o%tained %y !im in t!e #onstru#tion frm and t!at t!e petitoner #ould !a$e easily dedu#ted t!e de%t
from !is s!are in t!e profts. 8C de#ision "as in fa$or of t!e petitioner' !o"e$er CA re$ersed and set
&1 | P a g e
aside trial #ourt2s de#ision for insu;#ien#y of e$iden#e. E$idently' t!ere "as a #!e#, issued "ort!
[&5'111 paid to t!e o"ner of t!e Parana)ue property "!i#! %e#ame t!e #on-ugal d"elling of t!e
spouses. !e "ife e5e#uted an instrument a#,no"ledging t!e loan %ut A%elardo did not sign.
ISSUE: DK: a loan o%tained to pur#!ase t!e #on-ugal d"elling #an %e #!arged against t!e #on-ugal
partners!ip.
.EL/:
Mes' as it !as redounded to t!e %eneft of t!e family. !ey did not deny t!at t!e same ser$ed as t!eir
#on-ugal !ome t!us %enefting t!e family. +en#e' t!e spouses are -ointly and se$erally lia%le in t!e
payment of t!e loan. A%elardo2s #ontention t!at it is not a loan rat!er a proft s!are in t!e #onstru#tion
frm is untena%le sin#e t!ere "as no proof t!at !e "as part of t!e sto#,!olders t!at "ill entitle !im to
t!e profts and in#ome of t!e #ompany.
+en#e' t!e petition "as granted and A%elardo is ordered to pay t!e petitioner in t!e amount of
[&5'111 plus legal interest in#luding moral and e5emplary damages and attorney2s fees.
77777777777777
Metropo!ta" Ba"A a"d Tr0)t Co2pa"+ ,)- Ta"
G-R- No- ;5GHH=$ ?<= SCRA G;H$ O'to%er ;5$ 6>>G
METROPOLITAN BANO AN/ TRUST COMPANY$ pet!t!o"er$
,)-
SPOUSES ELISA TAN AN/ ANTONIO TAN a"d SPOUSES LILIAN TAN AN/ MARCIAL SEE$
re)po"de"t)-
J E C 6 S 6 K :
C+6CK-:A\A86K' 0.<
?efore Bs is a Petition for 8e$ie" on Certiorari under 8ule (5 of t!e 1999 8ules of Ci$il Pro#edure "!i#!
see,s to set aside t!e Je#ision1 of t!e Court of Appeals dated 31 0anuary &119 in CA-*.8. CF :o.
=/&1( a;rming in toto t!e Je#ision& of ?ran#! 3& of t!e 8egional rial Court @8CA of .anila in Ci$il
Case :o. 99-=511& and its 8esolution3 dated 15 0une &119 denying petitioner2s motion for
re#onsideration.
!e fa#tual ante#edents are as follo"s<
6n 0une 199(' Mlang-Mlang .er#!andising Company' a partners!ip %et"een Angelita 8odriguez and
respondent Antonio an' o%tained a loan in t!e amount of P&51'111.11 from petitioner .etropolitan
?an, and rust Company @.etro%an,A. o se#ure payment of t!e same' respondents spouses .ar#ial
See and Lilian an( #onstituted a real estate mortgage in fa$or of petitioner o$er t!eir property
#onsisting of (/9.(1 s)uare meters' lo#ated in t!e Jistri#t of Pa#o' .anila' #o$ered %y ransfer
Certif#ate of itle @CA :o. 115&33 of t!e 8egistry of Jeeds of .anila. !e mortgage' dated 1( 0une
199(' "as annotated at t!e %a#, of t!e title.5
Su%se)uently' after t!e partners!ip !ad #!anged its name to A-a5 .ar,eting Company' al%eit "it!out
#!anging its #omposition' it o%tained anot!er loan in 0uly 199/ in t!e amount of P151'111.11 from
.etro%an,. Again' to se#ure t!e loan' spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an e5e#uted in fa$or of
.etro%an, a se#ond real estate mortgage dated &/ August 199/ o$er t!e same property. As in t!e frst
instan#e' t!e mortgage "as annotated at t!e %a#, of C :o. 115&33./
Kn 19 Ge%ruary 1999' t!e partners!ip @A-a5 .ar,eting CompanyA "as #on$erted into a #orporation
denominated as A-a5 .ar,eting and Je$elopment Corporation @A-a5 .ar,etingA' "it! t!e original
partners @Angelita 8odriguez and Antonio anA as in#orporators and t!ree additional in#orporators'
namely' respondent Elisa an' t!e "ife of respondent Antonio an' and 0ose San Jiego and essie San
Jiego. A-a5 .ar,eting o%tained from .etro%an, a loan in t!e amount P/11'111.11' t!e payment of
"!i#! "as se#ured %y anot!er real estate mortgage e5e#uted %y t!e spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian
an o$er t!e same property in fa$or of .etro%an,. !e t!ird real estate mortgage "as annotated at t!e
%a#, of C :o. 115&33.
Kn & Je#em%er 19=1' t!e t!ree loans "it! an aggregate amount of P1'111'111.11 "ere re-stru#tured
and #onsolidated into one loan and A-a5 .ar,eting' represented %y Antonio an as ?oard
C!airman>President and in !is personal #apa#ity as solidary #o-o%ligor' and Elisa an as Fi#e-
President>reasurer and in !er personal #apa#ity as solidary #o-o%ligor' e5e#uted Promissory :ote @P:A
:o. ?JS-3/15. Said loan "as paya%le in eig!t @=A e)ual )uarterly installments of P1&5'111.11 starting
& .ar#! 19=1 until fully paid.9
Kn &( April 19=(' .etro%an, fled a #ase for sum of money %efore t!e 8C of .anila against A-a5
.ar,eting' Elisa an and Antonio an for anot!er loan earlier o%tained in t!e amount of P991'111.11
t!at t!e latter o%tained from t!e former for "!i#! t!ey e5e#uted Promissory :ote @P:A :o. ?JS-35=3.
!e #ase "as do#,eted as Ci$il Case :o. =(-&(1/5.= Su%se)uently' t!e lo"er #ourt de#ided t!is #ase
in fa$or of .etro%an, "!i#! de#ision "as a;rmed %y t!e Court of Appeals.
&& | P a g e
Gor failure of A-a5 .ar,eting to pay its o%ligation #ontained in P: :o. ?JS-3/15' .etro%an, fore#losed
t!e real estate mortgage. Kn 19 0une 19=(' t!e mortgaged property "as sold at pu%li# au#tion for
P1'995'1(1.11 to .etro%an,' it !a$ing t!e !ig!est and "inning %id.
Kn 11 Je#em%er 19=(' Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 for Annulment and Can#ellation of E5tra--udi#ial
Gore#losure Sale "it! Preliminary 6n-un#tion' 8estraining Krder and Jamages "as fled %y A-a5
.ar,eting and spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an' represented %y t!eir Attorney-in-Ga#t' Elisa an' and
spouses Antonio an and Elisa an @spouses anA against .etro%an, and t!e 8egistry of Jeeds of
.anila. !e #omplaint as,ed t!at t!e e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure' as "ell as t!e au#tion sale' %e de#lared
null and $oid on t!e ground t!at t!e real estate mortgages #onstituted on t!e property #o$ered %y C
:o. 115&33 !a$e %een e5tinguis!ed or no$ated "!en P: :o. ?JS-3/15 "as e5e#uted. !e trial #ourt
up!eld t!e $alidity of t!e e5tra--udi#ial fore#losure. Kn appeal to t!e Court of Appeals' t!e appellate
#ourt a;rmed t!e de#ision of t!e trial #ourt. !e de#ision "as appealed to t!e Supreme Court.
6n a letter dated & Ge%ruary 1995' spouses Antonio an and Elisa an "rote .etro%an, a letter9
#ontaining' inter alia' t!e follo"ing<
o end t!e #ontro$ersy on#e and for all' t!e undersigned spouses !ere%y proposes @si#A to fully settle
t!e o%ligations of t!e %orro"ers in e5#!ange of your release of t!e 8eal Estate .ortgage you are
presently !olding' to "it<
1. De propose to pay t!e total amount of P&.. to %e paid as follo"s<
aA Jo"npayment of P/11'111.11 t"o @&A "ee,s upon appro$al of our proposal4
%A ?alan#e of P1.(.. s!all no longer %e su%-e#t to interest and to %e li)uidated in &( mont!s or
P5='333.33 to %e #o$ered %y postdated #!e#,s.
&. Attorney2s fees s!all %e separately paid %y us.
Kn 1( Septem%er 1995' t!is Court rendered its Je#ision11 in Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 for Annulment
and Can#ellation of E5tra--udi#ial Gore#losure Sale "it! Preliminary 6n-un#tion' 8estraining Krder and
Jamages. De ruled<
NPOetitioners argue t!at a no$ation o##urred "!en t!eir t!ree @3A loans "!i#! are all se#ured %y t!e
same real estate property #o$ered %y C :o. 115&33 "ere #onsolidated into a single loan of P1 million
under Promissory :ote :o. ?JS-3/15' t!ere%y e5tinguis!ing t!eir monetary o%ligations and releasing
t!e mortgaged property from lia%ility.
5 5 5 5
!e attendant fa#ts !erein do not ma,e a #ase of no$ation. !ere is not!ing in t!e re#ords to s!o" t!e
une)ui$o#al intent of t!e parties to no$ate t!e t!ree loan agreements t!roug! t!e e5e#ution of P: :o.
?JS-31/5. !e pro$isions of P: :o. ?JS-3/15 yield no indi#ation of t!e e5tinguis!ment of' or an
in#ompati%ility "it!' t!e t!ree loan agreements se#ured %y t!e real estate mortgages o$er C :o.
115&33. 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 NPOetitioners posit t!at t!e e5tra--udi#ial fore#losure is in$alid as it in#luded t"o unse#ured loans<
one' t!e #onsolidated loan of P1.1 million under P: ?JS :o. 3/15' and t"o' t!e P991'111.11 loan
under P: ?JS :o. 35=3 su%se)uently e5tended %y .etro%an,.
An a#tion to fore#lose a mortgage is usually limited to t!e amount mentioned in t!e mortgage' %ut
"!ere on t!e four #orners of t!e mortgage #ontra#ts' as in t!is #ase' t!e intent of t!e #ontra#ting
parties is manifest t!at t!e mortgaged property s!all also ans"er for future loans or ad$an#ements
t!en t!e same is not improper as it is $alid and %inding %et"een t!e parties. Gor merely #onsolidating
and e5pediently ma,ing #urrent t!e t!ree pre$ious loans' t!e loan of P1.1 million under P: ?JS :o.
3/15' se#ured %y t!e real estate property' "as #orre#tly in#luded in t!e fore#losure2s %id pri#e. !e
in#lusion of t!e unse#ured loan of P991'111.11 under P: ?JS :o. 35=3' !o"e$er' "as found to %e
improper %y pu%li# respondent "!i#! ruling "e s!all not distur% for .etro%an,2s failure to appeal
t!erefrom. :onet!eless' t!e in#lusion of P: ?JS :o. 35=3 in t!e %id pri#e did not in$alidate t!e
fore#losure pro#eedings. As #orre#tly pointed out %y t!e Court of Appeals' t!e pro#eeds of t!e au#tion
sale s!ould %e applied to t!e o%ligation pertaining to P: ?JS :o. 3/15 only' plus interests' e5penses
and ot!er #!arges a##ruing t!ereto. 6t is .etro%an,2s duty as mortgagee to return t!e surplus in t!e
selling pri#e to t!e mortgagors.
Kn 1& Septem%er 1999' spouses Elisa an and Antonio an and spouses Lilian an and .ar#ial See fled
a #i$il #ase for Spe#if# Performan#e' 6n-un#tion and Jamages %efore t!e 8C of .anila' ?ran#! 31'
against .etro%an, and A-a5 .ar,eting @origin of t!e instant petitionA. !ey prayed' among ot!er
t!ings' t!at .etro%an, %e ordered to allo" t!em @spouses anA to e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption
o$er t!e su%-e#t fore#losed property and to a##ept t!e amount of P1'/19'33(./1 as t!e redemption
pri#e' and to order A-a5 .ar,eting to reim%urse t!em t!e amount "!i#! t!ey "ill pay as redemption
pri#e for t!e fore#losed property.11
&3 | P a g e
Kn ( :o$em%er 1999' an amended #omplaint "as fled.1& !ey in#luded as defendants 0o!n Joe and
Peter Joe. !ey made t!e follo"ing allegations<
Spouses See and spouses an alleged t!at t!e property #o$ered %y C :o. 115&33' t!oug! registered
in t!e names of spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an See is' in reality' #o-o"ned %y respondents and
t!eir ot!er si%lings. !ey furt!er allege t!at after t!e fore#losure sale' t!ey o3ered to redeem t!e
property "it!in t!e one-year redemption period and t!ey dis#o$ered t!at .etro%an, in#luded in t!e
%id pri#e an amount #o$ered %y P: :o. ?JS-35=3 not se#ured %y t!e mortgage o$er C :o. 115&33.
!ey #laim t!at "!ile t!e tender and o3er of t!e redemption "as seasona%ly made' same #annot %e
made %e#ause .etro%an, "as am%i$alent "it! respe#t to t!e redemption pri#e. 8edemption' t!ey
#laim' "as rendered dou%ly di;#ult "!en .etro%an, fled Ci$il Case :o. =(-&(1/5 "it! t!e 8C of
.anila to #olle#t on P: :o. ?JS-35=3. Kn t!eir part' t!ey fled Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 %efore t!e 8C
of .anila for annulment and #an#ellation of t!e e5tra--udi#ial fore#losure of t!e mortgage o$er C :o.
115&33 rendering more di;#ult t!e resumption of negotiation for redemption of t!e fore#losed
property. Kn 1( Septem%er 1995' t!e Supreme Court' in *.8. :o. 11=5=5' de#lared t!e e5tra--udi#ial
fore#losure $alid %ut found t!e in#lusion of P: :o. ?JS-35=3 in t!e %id pri#e to %e improper %ut same
did not in$alidate t!e fore#losure pro#eedings. After said de#ision' t!ey resumed to negotiate for t!e
redemption of t!e fore#losed property and tendered and o3ered P1'/19'33(./1 "!i#! .etro%an,
re-e#ted and de#lined. !ey furt!er alleged t!at .etro%an, en#ouraged t!eir ot!er si%lings to
repur#!ase t!e fore#losed property at a pri#e o$er and a%o$e t!e la"ful redemption pri#e. 6n fa#t'
.etro%an, sold t!e property to 0o!n and Peter Joe for P11'511'111.11 in #omplete disregard of t!eir
rig!t of redemption. !ey #laim t!at .etro%an, #annot sell t!e property %e#ause o"ners!ip t!ereof
!as not %een $ested a%solutely in its fa$or until t!ey !a$e e5er#ised t!eir rig!t of redemption. !e sale
of t!e property to t!eir ot!er si%lings "as fraudulent and t!erefore $oid. ?e#ause of t!e sale' t!ey and
t!eir ot!er si%lings "ere di$ested of t!eir s!are in t!e property and are additionally re)uired %y t!e
pur#!asing si%lings to reim%urse a portion of t!e repur#!ase pri#e @P11'511'111.11A' t!ere%y
fomenting trou%le "it!in t!e family. !ey as,ed' among ot!er t!ings' t!at t!e sale of t!e property
%et"een .etro%an, and defendants 0o!n and Peter Joe %e de#lared null and $oid a% initio and t!at
.etro%an, %e ordered to allo" t!em to e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption %y a##epting t!e amount of
P1'/19'33(./1 as t!e redemption pri#e.
Kn / :o$em%er 1999' Spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an e5e#uted a do#ument entitled LJeed of
8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#eL "!erein it "as stated t!at t!e latter @redemptionersA paid .etro%an,
on 1& Septem%er 1999 t!e amount of P11'511'111.11 representing t!e redemption pri#e for t!e
re#on$eyan#e>redemption of t!e fore#losed property @C :o. 115&33A.13
Kn & Ge%ruary 199=' .etro%an, fled a .otion to Jismiss on t!e ground t!at t!e #laims and demands
in t!e amended #omplaint !a$e %een e5tinguis!ed. .etro%an, dis#losed t!at t!e su%-e#t property "as
not sold to 0o!n and Peter Joe' %ut to spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an. As registered o"ners of t!e
property' t!e spouses "ere allo"ed to e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption on / :o$em%er 1999 as
e$iden#ed %y t!e Jeed of 8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#e.1( Kn 9 Je#em%er 199=' t!e motion "as
denied.15
Kn 3 Ge%ruary 1999' .etro%an, fled its Ans"er "it! Counter#laim. 6t de#lared t!at 0o!n and Peter Joe
are none ot!er t!an spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an. 6t alleged t!at neit!er A-a5 .ar,eting nor t!e
plainti3s @respondents !ereinA "ere a%le to redeem t!e su%-e#t property "it!in t!e one-year period
"!i#! #ommen#ed from t!e date @&1 0une 19=(A t!e Certif#ate of Sale issued %y t!e au#tioning s!eri3
"as registered "it! t!e #on#erned 8egistry of Jeeds. 8espondents did not e$en approa#! .etro%an,
to negotiate t!e redemption of said property. 6nstead' A-a5 .ar,eting and respondents instituted on 11
Je#em%er 19=( an a#tion to annul said e5tra--udi#ial fore#losure "!i#! fore#losure "as up!eld %y t!e
Supreme Court in *.8. :o. 11=5=5 on 1( Septem%er 1995. 6t "as only in 1999 t!at spouses .ar#ial
See and Lilian an #ommuni#ated "it! .etro%an, t!eir intention to %uy %a#, t!e su%-e#t property.
.etro%an, agreed to sell t!e property for t!e LredemptionL pri#e of P11'511'111.11. 6t furt!er denied
t!e allegations "it! respe#t to t!e a#tual o"ners!ip of t!e su%-e#t property. 6t added t!at t!e sale of
t!e fore#losed property to spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an "as not fraudulent and t!at property "as
redeemed at a mutually agreed pri#e. 6t e5plained t!at spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an are t!e
proper LredemptionersL of t!e su%-e#t property %eing t!e registered o"ners t!ereof. As su#!'
.etro%an, !ad t!e rig!t to allo" said spouses to redeem t!e property and to re#on$ey t!e same under
mutually agreed terms. 6t stressed t!at assuming arguendo t!at spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an
ne$er redeemed t!e su%-e#t property' spouses Elisa an and Antonio an o3ered t!e amount of
P1'/19'33(./1 "!en t!ey #ommuni#ated "it! .etro%an, in 1999 "!i#! amount t!ey %elie$e "as t!e
redemption pri#e Lin esse'L .etro%an, !ad rig!tfully re-e#ted t!e same for A#t :o. 3135' as amended'
re)uires t!e payment of t!e redemption pri#e e)ui$alent to t!e "inning %id pri#e @P1'995'1(1.11A plus
interest up to t!e time of redemption' toget!er "it! t!e amount of any assessments or ta5es paid %y
t!e pur#!aser after t!e au#tion sale' and interest on su#! last-named amount at t!e same rate.1/
6n its 8eply to t!e Ans"er' respondents #laim t!e LJeed of 8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#eL does not
%ear t!e true and genuine signatures of spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an. 6t said t!at assuming
arguendo t!at t!e Jeed of 8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#e is true' t!e di3eren#e %et"een
P11'511'111.11 and P1'995'1(1.11 s!ould %e refunded to t!em.19
Kn 11 0anuary &111' t!e pre-trial of t!e #ase "as terminated.1= !ereafter' t!e #ase "as !eard.
8espondents-spouses Elisa and Antonio an testifed in #ourt on t!eir %e!alf' "!ile for t!e defense'
only 8ito A. :egado' employee of .etro%an,' testifed on respondents2 loan "it! .etro%an,' t!e
&( | P a g e
e5e#ution of respondents .ar#ial See and Lilian an of t!e a##ommodation mortgage in fa$or of
.etro%an,' and respondents2 failure to pay t!eir o%ligation "!i#! led .etro%an, to initiate e5tra-
-udi#ial fore#losure pro#eedings.
D!ile t!e #ase "as %eing !eard' t!e presiding -udge !earing t!e #ase $oluntarily in!i%ited !imself from
t!e #ase. Conse)uently' t!e #ase "as re-raSed to ?ran#! 3& of 8C' .anila.19
Kn 5 .ay &115' t!e trial #ourt rendered its de#ision' t!e dispositi$e portion of "!i#! reads<
D+E8EGK8E' premises #onsidered' 0BJ*.E: is !ere%y rendered JECLA86:* t!e LJEEJ KG
8EJE.P6K: A:J 8ECK:FEMA:CEL %et"een Jefendant ?an, and t!e Sps. .ar#ial See and Lilian an
:BLL and FK6J a% initio. 6t is !ere%y furt!er AJ0BJ*EJ t!at<
1. Plainti3s Spouses Elisa and Antonio an are reinstated as 8edemptioners "it! t!e rig!t to redeem
t!e property fore#losed and mortgaged as t!ey are !ere%y dire#ted to pay Jefendant ?an, t!e sum of
P!p 1'/19'33(./1 as redemption pri#e in a##ordan#e "it! t!e Je#ision in *.8. :o. 11=5=5 and in turn'
Jefendant .etro%an, is ordered to re#on$ey C :o. 115&33 to plainti3s in e5#!ange for t!e said
redemption pri#e.
&. Jefendant ?an, is ordered to refund and pay to plainti3s Sps. .ar#ial See and Lilian an t!e sum of
P!p11'511'111.11 "it! interests at t!e rate of 1&] per annum %eginning Septem%er 1995 until t!e
"!ole o%ligation is fully paid4
3. Jefendant ?an, is fnally ordered to pay' in addition to t!e #osts of suit' t!e sum of P!p51'111.11 as
and for attorney2s fees o$er and a%o$e t!e #ontingent arrangement for legal ser$i#es rendered to
plainti3s Elisa and Antonio an %y t!eir la"yers.&1
!e 8C ruled t!at t!e nullif#ation of t!e Jeed of 8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#e dated / :o$em%er
1999 is "arranted. 6t de#lared t!at spouses Elisa and Antonio an' as mortgagors of t!e fore#losed
property' are entitled to e5er#ise t!eir rig!t as redemptioners. As su#!' t!ey s!ould pay .etro%an, as
redemption pri#e t!e amount of P!p1'/19'33(./1 or P!p1'995'1(1.11' as t!e #ase may %e' t!e latter
pri#e %eing .etro%an,2s "inning %id. !e fa#t t!at spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an are t!e
registered o"ners of t!e property fore#losed is not su;#ient to entitle t!em to redeem o$er and a%o$e
t!e "illingness of spouses Elisa and Antonio an to e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption. Spouses Elisa
and Antonio an !a$e t!e preferential rig!t as redemptioners of "!at t!ey !a$e mortgaged.
!e trial #ourt ruled t!at spouses Elisa and Antonio an are fully "it!in t!eir rig!t to redeem t!e
fore#losed property after t!e fnality of t!e Je#ision in *.8. :o. 11=5=5. e#!ni#ally' it said' t!e tender
and o3er of redemption of spouses Elisa and Antonio an "as "it!in t!e one-year period re#,oned from
t!e registration of t!e Certif#ate of Sale in t!e 8egistry of Jeeds %e#ause t!e redemption period "as
LfreezedL "!en respondents "ere for#ed to fle Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 @Annulment and Can#ellation
of E5tra--udi#ial Gore#losure Sale "it! Preliminary 6n-un#tion' 8estraining Krder and JamagesA on 11
Je#em%er 19=( after said tender of redemption pri#e "as refused as a result of a misunderstanding as
to its amount. 8espondents insisted to redeem on t!e %asis of t!eir P: :o. ?JS-3/15 "!ile .etro%an,
demanded t!at t!e redemption pri#e s!ould in#lude t!e unse#ured P: :o. ?JS-35=3. !e fling of Ci$il
Case :o. =5-33933 "it!in t!e one-year redemption period preser$ed spouses Elisa and Antonio an2s
rig!t of redemption until said #ase !as %een de#ided "it! fnality. Citing State 6n$estment +ouse' 6n#. $.
Court of Appeals'&1 ?elisario $. 6ntermediate Appellate Court&& and +i-Mield 8ealty' 6n#. $. Court of
Appeals'&3 t!e Court said t!at t!e fling of t!e Ci$il Complaint !as t!e e3e#t of freezing t!e
redemption period and preser$es t!e rig!t of t!e mortgagor to redeem t!e property fore#losed' and
t!at t!e fling of t!e #ourt a#tion to enfor#e t!e #orre#t redemption pri#e is e)ui$alent to a formal o3er
to redeem. !e o3er to redeem in t!is #ase made sometime in 19=5 "as LfrozenL and remained fres!
and une5pired until Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 "as fnally de#ided %y t!e Supreme Court on 1(
Septem%er 1995. !ereafter' t!e redemption period resumed to run ane".
.etro%an, appealed said de#ision to t!e Court of Appeals. Kn 31 0anuary &119' t!e appellate #ourt
a;rmed in toto t!e de#ision of t!e trial #ourt. 6t disposed of t!e #ase as follo"s<
D+E8EGK8E' premises #onsidered' t!e appeal is J6S.6SSEJ for la#, of merit and t!e assailed de#ision
of t!e #ourt a )uo is !ere%y AGG68.EJ in toto. :o #osts.&(
!e Court of Appeals said t!at t!e spouses Elisa and Antonio an "ere granted' no less %y t!e
Supreme Court' t!e rig!t to redeem t!e #ontested property. +o"e$er' despite t!e fnality of t!e
Supreme Court de#ision in *.8. :o. 11=5=5' .etro%an, ignored spouses Elisa and Antonio an2s rig!t
to redeem and instead allo"ed spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an to redeem t!e property. 6t des#ri%ed
su#! a#t of .etro%an, to %e #ontemptuous. 6t %rus!ed a"ay .etro%an,2s argument t!at spouses Elisa
and Antonio an !a$e no more rig!t to redeem as t!ey failed to ma,e a $alid tender sin#e "!at t!ey
did "as a mere proposal failing to a#tually deli$er t!e redemption pri#e. !e appellate #ourt added
t!at .etro%an, !as no rig!t to demand from spouses Elisa and Antonio an t!e a#tual deli$ery of t!e
redemption pri#e %e#ause it is not legally #apa#itated to surrender t!e possession and title of t!e
su%-e#t property to said spouses until su#! time t!e redemption of spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an
is de#lared null and $oid. 6t agreed "it! t!e trial #ourt t!at t!e one-year period to redeem t!e
fore#losed property "as deemed suspended.
!e motion for re#onsideration fled %y .etro%an, "as denied.
&5 | P a g e
+en#e' t!is appeal $ia petition for re$ie" on #ertiorari.
6nitially' t!is Court denied t!e petition for insu;#ient or defe#ti$e $erif#ation and for failure to s!o"
t!at t!e appellate #ourt #ommitted re$ersi%le error as to "arrant t!e e5er#ise %y t!is Court of its
dis#retionary appellate -urisdi#tion.&5 .etro%an, fled a motion for t!e re#onsideration. Kn 1&
:o$em%er &119' t!e Court granted t!e motion and set aside t!e resolution denying t!e petition' and
re)uired respondents to #omment t!ereon "it!in ten days from re#eipt of noti#e.&/ 8espondents fled
t!eir Comment&9 to "!i#! .etro%an, fled a 8eply.&=
!e Court ga$e due #ourse to t!e petition and re)uired t!e parties to su%mit t!eir respe#ti$e
memoranda.&9
.etro%an, ma,es t!e follo"ing assignment of errors<
D+E+E8 +E CKB8 KG APPEALS E88EJ 6: JECLA86:* +A .E8K?A:W .BS ?E LE*ALLM
CAPAC6AEJ K SB88E:JE8 PKSSESS6K: A:J 6LE K +E SB?0EC P8KPE8M 6: K8JE8 GK8 6 K
?E A?LE K 6:FKWE +E LE*AL 8EUB68E.E: KG +E LAD +A +E8E .BS ?E A: ACBAL E:JE8
K8 JEL6FE8M KG +E 8EJE.P6K: P86CE GK8 A: KGGE8 K 8EJEE. K ?E ?6:J6:*.
D+E+E8 +E CKB8 KG APPEALS E88EJ D+E: 6 JECLA8EJ +A 8ESPK:JE: SPKBSES A:K:6K
A:J EL6SA A:2S E:JE8 A:J KGGE8 KG 8EJE.P6K: DAS D6+6: +E K:E-MEA8 PE86KJ SA86:*
G8K. +E 8E*6S8A6K: KG +E CE86G6CAE KG SALE CK:S6JE86:* +A +E 8EJE.P6K: PE86KJ
DAS LG8EE\EJL D+E: 8ESPK:JE:S DE8E GK8CEJ K G6LE C6F6L CASE :K. =5-33933 K: JECE.?E8
11' 19=( AGE8 +E68 E:JE8 KG +E 8EJE.P6K: P86CE DAS 8EGBSEJ ?M .E8K?A:W A:J +A
+E 8EJE.P6K: PE86KJ 8E.A6:EJ G8ES+ A:J B:E^P68EJ B:6L C6F6L CASE :K. =5-33933 DAS
G6:ALLM AJ0BJ6CAEJ ?M +E SBP8E.E CKB8 6: SEPE.?E8 1995.
D+E+E8 +E CKB8 KG APPEALS E88EJ 6: JECLA86:* +A .E8K?A:W 6S L6A?LE K PAM
8ESPK:JE:S AK8:EM2S GEES.
D+E+E8 +E CKB8 KG APPEALS E88EJ 6: JECLA86:* +A +E 86AL CKB8 DAS CK88EC 6:
SB?.66:* +E CASE 6..EJ6AELM GK8 JEC6S6K: AS +E8E DAS B:8EASK:A?LE JELAM K: +E
PA8 KG .E8K?A:W 6: +E P8ESE:A6K: KG 6S EF6JE:CE.31
!ere is no dispute t!at respondents "ere already in default in t!e payment of t!eir o%ligation. !us'
.etro%an, !ad t!e rig!t to fore#lose any real estate mortgage e5e#uted in its fa$or as se#urity for t!e
loans it !as gi$en to respondents. Gore#losure is $alid "!ere t!e de%tor is in default in t!e payment of
!is o%ligation. 6n a real estate mortgage "!en t!e prin#ipal o%ligation is not paid "!en due' t!e
mortgagee !as t!e rig!t to fore#lose t!e mortgage and to !a$e t!e property seized and sold "it! t!e
$ie" of applying t!e pro#eeds to t!e payment of t!e o%ligation.31
6n t!e resolution of t!is #ase' t"o primary issues !a$e to %e resol$ed<
1. Jid t!e fling of Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 @Annulment and Can#ellation of E5tra--udi#ial Gore#losure
Sale "it! Preliminary 6n-un#tion' 8estraining Krder and JamagesA %y respondents on 11 Je#em%er
19=( interrupt t!e running of t!e one-year redemption periodZ
&. Jid spouses Elisa and Antonio an e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption "it!in t!e one-year period
allo"ed %y la"Z
Grom t!e re#ords' t!e fore#losure sale "as on 19 0une 19=( and t!e Certif#ate of Sale issued %y t!e
s!eri3 "as registered "it! t!e 8egistry of Jeeds of .anila on &1 0une 19=(. Kn 11 Je#em%er 19=('
Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 for Annulment and Can#ellation of E5tra--udi#ial Gore#losure Sale "as fled %y
respondents. Kn & Ge%ruary 1995' spouses Antonio an and Elisa an "rote .etro%an, a letter
proposing to redeem t!e su%-e#t for P&'111'111.11 paya%le as follo"s< do"npayment of P/11'111.11
and t!e %alan#e paya%le in &( mont!s @P5='333.33>mont!A "it!out interest. !ereafter' on 1(
Septem%er 1995' t!is Court' in *.8. :o. 11=5=5' ruled "it! fnality t!at t!e e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure
and sale "ere $alid.
!e lo"er #ourts ruled t!at t!e fling of Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 suspended t!e running of t!e one-year
redemption period for "!i#! spouses Elisa and Antonio an #an e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption. !e
tender and o3er of redemption made %y spouses Elisa and Antonio an "as "it!in t!e one-year
redemption period. Kn t!e ot!er !and' .etro%an, insists t!at t!e fling of said #ase did not toll t!e
running of said redemption period and t!at t!ey failed to e5er#ise said rig!t "it! t!e allo"a%le period
of one year.
!e fling of Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 @Annulment and Can#ellation of E5tra--udi#ial Gore#losure SaleA
did not toll t!e running of t!e one-year redemption period. Settled is t!e rule t!at t!e period "it!in
"!i#! to redeem t!e property sold at a s!eri32s sale is not suspended %y t!e institution of an a#tion to
annul t!e fore#losure sale.3& !us' %ot! lo"er #ourts erred in ruling t!at t!e one-year redemption
period "as interrupted.
6t is apparent from t!e #omplaint fled in Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 t!at t!e issue ad$an#ed %y
respondents is "!et!er t!e e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure' as "ell as t!e au#tion sale' is $oid %e#ause t!e
real estate mortgages #onstituted on t!e property #o$ered %y C :o. 115&33 !a$e %een e5tinguis!ed
&/ | P a g e
or no$ated "!en P: :o. ?JS-3/15 "as e5e#uted. !ere is not!ing in t!e #omplaint t!at deals "it! any
rig!t of redemption. 8espondents "anted to !a$e t!e e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure pro#eedings nullifed on
t!e ground t!at t!eir o%ligation under P: :o. ?JS-3/15 "as no longer se#ured %y any mortgage.
De li,e"ise fnd t!e de#laration of t!e Court of Appeals t!at t!e spouses Elisa and Antonio an "ere
granted %y t!e Supreme Court t!e rig!t to redeem t!e #ontested property pursuant to *.8. :o. 11=5=5
to %e "it!out %asis. !ere is not!ing in *.8. :o. 11=5=5 t!at ga$e respondents t!e rig!t to redeem.
!is Court did not e$en determine t!e amount of t!e redemption pri#e "!i#!' in t!e frst pla#e' "as
not raised as an issue. D!at "as up!eld in said #ase "as t!e $alidity of t!e e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure
despite t!e in#lusion t!erein of an unse#ured loan.
+a$ing ruled t!at Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933 did not toll t!e running of t!e one-year redemption period'
did spouses Elisa and Antonio an e5er#ise t!eir rig!t o redemption "it!in t!is periodZ !ey did not.
Se#tion / of 8epu%li# A#t :o. 3135'33 as amended %y 8epu%li# A#t :o. (11=' pro$ides<
Se#. /. 6n all #ases in "!i#! an e5tra-udi#ial sale is made under t!e spe#ial po"er !erein%efore referred
to' t!e de%tor' !is su##essors in interest or any -udi#ial #reditor or -udgment #reditor of said de%tor' or
any person !a$ing a lien on t!e property su%se)uent to t!e mortgage or deed of trust under "!i#! t!e
property is sold' may redeem t!e same at any time "it!in t!e term of one year from and after t!e date
of t!e sale4 5 5 5. @Emp!asis supplied.A
De' !o"e$er' !a$e #onsistently ruled t!at t!e one-year redemption period s!ould %e #ounted not from
t!e date of fore#losure sale' %ut from t!e time t!e #ertif#ate of sale is registered "it! t!e 8egistry of
Jeeds.3(
6n t!e #ase %efore us' t!e #ertif#ate of sale "as registered "it! t!e 8egistry of Jeeds of .anila on &1
0une 19=(. Bnder Arti#le 13 of t!e Ci$il Code' a year is understood to %e t!ree !undred si5ty-f$e @3/5A
days. !us e5#luding t!e frst day and #ounting from &1 0une 19=(' respondents spouses an !ad only
until &1 0une 19=5 "it!in "!i#! to redeem t!e fore#losed property in a##ordan#e "it! la". Prior to t!is
date' t!ey did not e5er#ise t!eir rig!t to redeem t!e fore#losed property.
!e only #redi%le e$iden#e respondents presented to s!o" t!at t!ey allegedly o3ered to redeem t!e
su%-e#t property "as t!e letter35 of spouses Elisa and Antonio an dated & Ge%ruary 1995 "!ere t!ey
o3ered t!e amount of t"o million pesos @in installmentA as settlement of t!eir o%ligation and for t!e
release of t!e real estate mortgages on C :o. 115&33. Kt!er t!an t!is' "e fnd not!ing #on#rete to
pro$e t!at t!ey @spouses anA tried to redeem "it!in t!e one-year period and e$en after "!en t!is
Court ruled in *.8. :o. 11=5=5 on 1( Septem%er 1995. !eir #laims t!at t!ey tendered t!eir o3er to
redeem on $arious times are all unsu%stantiated and "!i#! .etro%an, !as denied.
!e general rule in redemption is t!at it is not su;#ient t!at a person o3ering to redeem manifests
!is>!er desire to do so. !e statement of intention must %e a##ompanied %y an a#tual and
simultaneous tender of payment. !is #onstitutes t!e e5er#ise of t!e rig!t to repur#!ase. ?ona fde
redemption ne#essarily implies a reasona%le and $alid tender of t!e entire pur#!ase pri#e' ot!er"ise
t!e rule on t!e redemption period f5ed %y la" #an easily %e #ir#um$ented.3/ !ere is no #ogent
reason for re)uiring t!e $endee to a##ept payment %y installments from t!e redemptioner' as it "ould
ultimately result in an indefnite e5tension of t!e redemption period.39
6n order to e3e#t a redemption' t!e -udgment de%tor must pay t!e pur#!aser t!e redemption pri#e
#omposed of t!e follo"ing< @1A t!e pri#e "!i#! t!e pur#!aser paid for t!e property4 @&A interest of 1]
per mont! on t!e pur#!ase pri#e4 @3A t!e amount of any assessment or ta5es "!i#! t!e pur#!aser may
!a$e paid on t!e property after t!e pur#!ase4 and @(A interest of 1] per mont! on su#! assessment
and ta5es.3=
E$en assuming t!at su#! o3er "as made %y t!e spouses Elisa and Antonio an "it!in t!e one-year
redemption period' "e fnd said o3er in t!e amount of t"o million pesos to %e in$alid and ine3e#tual. 6t
is #lear from t!e letter t!at t!e tender "as in installments. Same "ill not do for t!ere is no s!o"ing
t!at .etro%an, agreed $ia su#! payment. ?y paying in installments' t!e redemption period "ill %e
e5tended. 6t #ould %e ot!er"ise if .etro%an, agreed4 in su#! #ase' t!e #on#ept of legal redemption "ill
%e #on$erted into one of #on$entional redemption.39 .oreo$er' t!oug! t!ere "as an o3er' t!ere "as
no e$iden#e t!at t!ere "as an a#tual and simultaneous tender of payment. 8edemption "it!in t!e
period allo"ed %y la" is not a matter of intent %ut a )uestion of payment or $alid tender of t!e full
redemption pri#e "it!in said period.(1
!e trial #ourt' #iting State 6n$estment +ouse' 6n#. $. Court of Appeals'(1 ?elisario $. 6ntermediate
Appellate Court(& and +i-Mield 8ealty' 6n#. $. Court of Appeals'(3 de#lared t!at t!e fling of t!e Ci$il
Complaint !as t!e e3e#t of freezing t!e redemption period and preser$es t!e rig!t of t!e mortgagor to
redeem t!e property fore#losed' and t!at t!e fling of t!e #ourt a#tion to enfor#e t!e #orre#t
redemption pri#e is e)ui$alent to a formal o3er to redeem. Su#! rule !as no appli#ation in t!e instant
#ase. Su#! rule applies only "!en t!e #omplaint to enfor#e a repur#!ase is fled "it!in t!e period of
redemption in "!i#! #ase' t!e same "ill %e e)ui$alent to an o3er to redeem and !a$e t!e e3e#t of
preser$ing t!e rig!t of redemption. 6n t!e #ase %efore us' t!e #omplaint for redemption @Spe#if#
Performan#eA "as fled %eyond t!e one-year redemption period or on 1& Septem%er 1999' more t!an
t"el$e years from &1 0une 19=5 "!i#! is t!e last day of said period. De do not #onsider t!e #omplaint
fled %y respondents on 11 Je#em%er 19=(' do#,eted as Ci$il Case :o. =5-33933' for Annulment and
&9 | P a g e
Can#ellation of E5tra--udi#ial Gore#losure Sale to %e an a#tion for -udi#ial redemption %e#ause its
purpose "as not for redemption %ut for nullif#ation of e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure sale.
6n t!e #ase at %ar' respondents spouses Elisa and Antonio an failed to s!o" good fait! on t!eir part.
!ey !a$e failed to $alidly tender any redemption pri#e nor #onsigned any amount' in any of t!e #ases
t!ey !a$e fled' "!i#! t!ey %elie$ed "as t!e #orre#t amount' if only to s!o" t!eir "illingness and
a%ility to pay. 6t is not di;#ult to understand "!y t!e redemption pri#e s!ould eit!er %e fully o3ered in
legal tender or else $alidly #onsigned in #ourt. Knly %y su#! means #an t!e au#tion "inner %e assured
t!at t!e o3er to redeem is %eing done in good fait!.((
6n t!e #ase %efore us' t!oug! t!e respondents spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an signed a do#ument
entitled LJeed of 8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#eL "!erein t!ey "ere #alled t!e L8edemptionersL and
t!at t!ey paid t!e amount of P11'511'111.11 for t!e su%-e#t property' t!is Court fnds t!at "!at "as
entered into %y t!em and .etro%an, "as not a redemption' %ut a sale. ?eing already t!e a%solute
o"ner of t!e su%-e#t property %e#ause spouses Elisa and Antonio an failed to properly e5er#ise t!eir
rig!t of redemption' .etro%an, #an sell' to a pri#e of its li,ing' t!e fore#losed property to interested
%uyers "!i#! in t!is #ase are respondents spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an. !e pri#e itself
@P11'511'111.11A is indi#ati$e of a sale. 6f it "ere a redemption' t!e pri#e "ould only %e t!e "inning
%id pri#e @P1'995'1(1.11A plus interest up to t!e time of redemption' toget!er "it! t!e amount of any
assessments or ta5es paid %y t!e pur#!aser after t!e au#tion sale' and interest on su#! last-named
amount at t!e same rate.
!e appellate #ourt2s ruling t!at .etro%an, !ad no rig!t to demand from spouses Elisa and Antonio
an t!e a#tual deli$ery of t!e redemption pri#e %e#ause it is not legally #apa#itated to surrender t!e
possession and title of t!e su%-e#t property to said spouses until su#! time t!e redemption of spouses
.ar#ial See and Lillian an is de#lared null and $oid' is Ta"ed.
.etro%an,' as t!e !ig!est %idder in t!e pu%li# au#tion sale' #an demand from t!e redemptioner' in t!is
#ase spouses Elisa and Antonio an' t!e pur#!ase pri#e and ta5es it !ad paid for t!e property' toget!er
"it! interests "it! t!e one-year redemption period. 6f same is not paid %y t!e redemptioner "it!in t!e
time pres#ri%ed %y la"' t!e latter loses !is>!er rig!t to redeem' and t!e %uyer of t!e fore#losed
property %e#omes its a%solute o"ner. Prior to selling t!e property to spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an
$ia t!e Jeed of 8edemption and 8e#on$eyan#e' .etro%an, already #onsolidated its o"ners!ip o$er
t!e fore#losed property. De "ill not nullify t!e LredemptionL @pur#!aseA made %y spouses .ar#ial See
and Lilian an so t!at respondents spouses Elisa and Antonio an #an e5er#ise t!eir rig!t of redemption
"!i#! !as long %een lost for t!eir failure to e5er#ise t!e same in a##ordan#e "it! la".
!e trial #ourt2s ruling t!at respondents spouses Elisa and Antonio an s!ould %e allo"ed to redeem
t!e fore#losed property %e#ause .etro%an, Lallo"ed t!e e5e#ution of t!e Jeed of 8edemption and
8e#on$eyan#e to a "rong person and for "rong reasonL is erroneous. As e5plained a%o$e' "e #onsider
t!e LredemptionL for P11'511'111.11 made %y spouses .ar#ial See and Lilian an to %e a sale in t!e
guise of a redemption. Su#! LredemptionL "ill not restore respondents spouses Elisa and Antonio an2s
rig!t to legally redeem t!e su%-e#t property "!i#! rig!t t!ey !a$e lost.
8espondents spouses Elisa and Antonio an "ere granted %y t!e la" t!e rig!t of redemption "!i#!
t!ey failed to e5er#ise $alidly and e3e#ti$ely. +a$ing failed to redeem t!e fore#losed property in t!e
manner and "it!in t!e period pres#ri%ed %y la"' t!ey !a$e lost any rig!t and interest o$er t!e su%-e#t
property. 6n so doing' .etro%an, !as t!e rig!t to dispose of said property as it deems ft.
D+E8EGK8E' all t!e foregoing #onsidered' t!e instant petition for re$ie" on #ertiorari is *8A:EJ and
t!e Je#ision of t!e Court of Appeals dated 31 0anuary &119 and its 8esolution dated 15 0une &119 in
CA-*.8. CF :o. =/&1( are !ere%y 8EFE8SEJ and SE AS6JE. !e #omplaint in Ci$il Case :o. 99-=511&
%efore t!e 8egional rial Court of .anila' ?ran#! 3&' is J6S.6SSEJ.
SK K8JE8EJ.
7777777777777777777
CARLOS JS SAN/OJAL
eoflo Carlos and petitioner 0uan Je Jios Carlos "ere %rot!ers "!o ea#! !a$e t!ree par#els of land %y
$irtue of in!eritan#e. Later eoflo died intestate. +e "as sur$i$ed %y respondents Geli#idad Sando$al
and t!eir son' eoflo Carlos 66. Bpon eoflo2s deat!' t"o par#els of land "ere registered in t!e name of
Geli#idad and eoflo 66. 6n August 1995' Carlos #ommen#ed an a#tion against respondents %efore t!e
#ourt a 6uo. 6n !is #omplaint' Carlos asserted t!at t!e marriage %et"een !is late %rot!er and Geli#idad
"as a nullity in $ie" of t!e a%sen#e of t!e re)uired marriage li#ense. +e li,e"ise maintained t!at !is
de#eased %rot!er "as neit!er t!e natural nor t!e adopti$e fat!er of eoflo Carlos 66. +e argued t!at
t!e properties #o$ered %y su#! #ertif#ates of title' in#luding t!e sums re#ei$ed %y respondents as
pro#eeds' s!ould %e re#on$eyed to !im.
.EL/: The (ro0"d) for de'arat!o" of a%)o0te "0!t+ of 2arr!a(e 20)t %e pro,ed- Ne!ther
C0d(2e"t o" the pead!"() "or )022ar+ C0d(2e"t !) ao*ed- So !) 'o"fe))!o" of C0d(2e"t
d!)ao*ed- Carlos argues t!at t!e CA s!ould !a$e applied 8ule 35 of t!e 8ules of Court go$erning
summary -udgment' instead of t!e rule on -udgment on t!e pleadings. Petitioner is misguided.
D!et!er it is %ased on -udgment on t!e pleadings or summary -udgment' t!e CA "as #orre#t in
re$ersing t!e summary -udgment rendered %y t!e trial #ourt. ?ot! t!e rules on -udgment on t!e
&= | P a g e
pleadings and summary -udgments !a$e no pla#e in #ases of de#laration of a%solute nullity of
marriage and e$en in annulment of marriage.
A pet!t!o" for de'arat!o" of a%)o0te "0!t+ of ,o!d 2arr!a(e 2a+ %e &ed )oe+ %+ the
h0)%a"d or *!fe- ED'ept!o"): :;@ N0!t+ of 2arr!a(e 'a)e) 'o22e"'ed %efore the
e#e't!,!t+ of A-M- No- >6-;;-;>-SCP a"d :6@ Marr!a(e) 'ee%rated d0r!"( the e#e't!,!t+ of
the C!,! Code- Bnder t!e R0e o" /e'arat!o" of A%)o0te N0!t+ of Jo!d Marr!a(e) and
Annulment of Foida%le .arriages' t!e petition for de#laration of a%solute nullity of marriage may not
%e fled %y any party outside of t!e marriage. A petition for de#laration of a%solute nullity of $oid
marriage may %e fled solely %y t!e !us%and or t!e "ife. Knly an aggrie$ed or in-ured spouse may fle
a petition for annulment of $oida%le marriages or de#laration of a%solute nullity of $oid marriages.
Su#! petition #annot %e fled %y #ompulsory or intestate !eirs of t!e spouses or %y t!e State. !e
Committee is of t!e %elief t!at t!ey do not !a$e a legal rig!t to fle t!e petition. Compulsory or
intestate !eirs !a$e only in#!oate rig!ts prior to t!e deat! of t!eir prede#essor' and' !en#e' #an only
)uestion t!e $alidity of t!e marriage of t!e spouses upon t!e deat! of a spouse in a pro#eeding for t!e
settlement of t!e estate of t!e de#eased spouse fled in t!e regular #ourts. Kn t!e ot!er !and' t!e
#on#ern of t!e State is to preser$e marriage and not to see, its dissolution. !e 8ule e5tends only to
marriages entered into during t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code "!i#! too, e3e#t on August 3' 19==.
!e ad$ent of t!e 8ule on Je#laration of A%solute :ullity of Foid .arriages mar,s t!e %eginning of t!e
end of t!e rig!t of t!e !eirs of t!e de#eased spouse to %ring a nullity of marriage #ase against t!e
sur$i$ing spouse. ?ut t!e 8ule ne$er intended to depri$e t!e #ompulsory or intestate !eirs of t!eir
su##essional rig!ts.
D!ile A... :o. 1&-11-11-SC de#lares t!at a petition for de#laration of a%solute nullity of marriage may
%e fled solely %y t!e !us%and or t!e "ife' it does not mean t!at t!e #ompulsory or intestate !eirs are
"it!out any re#ourse under t!e la". !ey #an still prote#t t!eir su##essional rig!t' for' as stated in t!e
8ationale of t!e 8ules on Annulment of Foida%le .arriages and Je#laration of A%solute :ullity of Foid
.arriages' #ompulsory or intestate !eirs #an still )uestion t!e $alidity of t!e marriage of t!e spouses'
not in a pro#eeding for de#laration of nullity %ut upon t!e deat! of a spouse in a pro#eeding for t!e
settlement of t!e estate of t!e de#eased spouse fled in t!e regular #ourts.
6t is emp!asized' !o"e$er' t!at t!e 8ule does not apply to #ases already #ommen#ed %efore .ar#! 15'
&113 alt!oug! t!e marriage in$ol$ed is "it!in t!e #o$erage of t!e Gamily Code. !is is so' as t!e ne"
8ule "!i#! %e#ame e3e#ti$e on .ar#! 15' &113 is prospe#ti$e in its appli#ation.
Petitioner #ommen#ed t!e nullity of marriage #ase against respondent Geli#idad in 1995. !e marriage
in #ontro$ersy "as #ele%rated on .ay 1(' 19/&. D!i#! la" "ould go$ern depends upon "!en t!e
marriage too, pla#e.
!e marriage !a$ing %een solemnized prior to t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code' t!e appli#a%le la" is
t!e Ci$il Code "!i#! "as t!e la" in e3e#t at t!e time of its #ele%ration. ?ut t!e Ci$il Code is silent as to
"!o may %ring an a#tion to de#lare t!e marriage $oid. Joes t!is mean t!at any person #an %ring an
a#tion for t!e de#laration of nullity of marriageZ
rue' under t!e :e" Ci$il Code "!i#! is t!e la" in for#e at t!e time t!e respondents "ere married' or
e$en in t!e Gamily Code't!ere is no spe#if# pro$ision as to "!o #an fle a petition to de#lare t!e nullity
of marriage4 !o"e$er' only a party "!o #an demonstrate ?)ro)er interest@ #an fle t!e same. A petition
to de#lare t!e nullity of marriage' li,e any ot!er a#tions' *ust be )rosecuted or de(ended in t&e na*e
o( t&e real )arty.in.interest and *ust be based on a cause o( action . !us' in iAal '. Badayo,, t!e
Court !eld t!at t!e #!ildren !a$e t!e personality to fle t!e petition to de#lare t!e nullity of marriage of
t!eir de#eased fat!er to t!eir stepmot!er as it a3e#ts t!eir su##essional rig!ts.
77777777777777777777
*ra.cisco vs. 6as%er 1ro. 7or8s Co.s%ruc%io. Corpora%io.
R. !o. 151&'7, *ebruary 1', (##5
FACTS:
0osefna Castillo "as &( years old "!en s!e and Eduardo Gran#is#o got married on 0anuary 19=3. !e
latter "as t!en employed as Fi#e President in a Pri$ate Corporation. 0osefna a#)uired t"o par#els of
land "!ere 6mus ?an, e5e#uted a deed of a%solute sale in fa$or of 0osefna' married to Eduardo. An
a;da$it of "ai$er "as e5e#uted %y Eduardo "!ere !e de#lared t!at prior to !is marriage "it! 0osefna'
t!e latter pur#!ased t!e land "it! !er o"n sa$ings and t!at !e "ai$ed "!ate$er #laims !e !ad o$er
t!e property. D!en 0osefna mortgaged t!e property for a loan' Eduardo a;5ed !is marital #onformity
to t!e deed. 6n 1991' Eduardo "!o "as t!en a *eneral .anager' %oug!t %ags of #ement from
defendant %ut failed to pay t!e same. !e latter fled a #omplaint for re#o$ery and trial #ourt rendered
-udgment against Eduardo. !e #ourt t!en issued a "rit of e5e#ution and t!e s!eriif issued a noti#e of
le$y on e5e#ution o$er t!e alleged property of 0osefna for t!e re#o$ery of t!e %alan#e of t!e amount
due under t!e de#ision of t!e trial #ourt. Petitioner fled a t!ird party #laim o$er t!e & par#els of land
in "!i#! s!e #laimed as !er parap!ernal property.
ISSUE: DK: t!e su%-e#t property is t!e #on-ugal property of 0osefna and Eduardo.
.EL/:
!e Court ruled t!at petitioner failed to pro$e t!at s!e a#)uired t!e property "it! !er personal funds
%efore !er #o!a%itation "it! Eduardo and t!at s!e "as t!e sole o"ner. !e Jeed of A%solute Sale on
&9 | P a g e
re#ord s!o"ed it "as issued after !er marriage. !eir #ase fall under Arti#le 1(= and sin#e t!ey got
married %efore t!e Gamily Code' t!e pro$ision' pursuant to Art &5/' #an %e applied retroa#ti$ely if it
does not pre-udi#e $ested rig!ts. Petitioner li,e"ise failed t!at s!e !ad any $ested rig!t.
D!ere t!e parties are in a $oid marriage due to a legal impediment t!at in$alidates su#! marriage' Art
1(= s!ould %e applied. 6n t!e a%sen#e of proof t!at t!e "ife>!us%and !as a#tually #ontri%uted money'
property' or industry to t!e properties a#)uired during su#! union t!e presumption of #o-o"ners!ip "ill
not arise.
!e petition "as denied for la#, of merit. !e de#ision of CA t!at t!e property "as #on-ugal "as
a;rmed.
77777777777777777
Sa" L0!) ,)- Sa" L0!)
S!ort Summary< Gormer Laguna go$ernor !ad 1st spouse "!o prede#eased !im' t!en married again to
an Ameri#an #itizen "!o di$or#ed !im' t!en remarried again. +e died "it! !is 3rd "ife %ut !is &nd "ife
and t!e #!ildren in t!e 1st marriage #ontested t!e standing of t!e 3rd "ife' #laiming t!at t!e said
marriage "as %igamous sin#e t!e &nd marriage "as still su%sisting under 8P la" @#anCt apply GC
retroa#ti$elyA. Court !eld t!at e$en "it! GC not applied retroa#ti$ely' Fan Jorn and ot!er -urispruden#e
su;#iently pro$ides t!e $alidity to t!e 3rd marriage' t!us re#ognizing di$or#e o%tained %y an alien
spouse against t!e Gilipino spouse. +o"e$er' as t!e 3rd marriage "as not su;#iently pro$ed' t!e #ase
"as remanded in order for t!e 3rd spouse to present furt!er e$iden#e on t!is.
Ga#ts
GEL6C6S6.K SA: LB6S #ontra#ted 3 marriages<
1. F68*6:6A SBL6< !ad / #!ildren' died %efore !e did in 19/3
&. .E88M LEE CK8D6:< BS #itizen' !ad son o%ias' di$or#ed !im %efore +a"aiian #ourts
"!i#! "as granted in 1993
3. GEL6C6JAJ SA*ALK:*KS SA: LB6S< married %efore a Pres%yterian C!ur#! in California
n 199(' li$ed "it! !im until !e died for 1= years in t!eir Ala%ang residen#e
-"!en Geli#isimo died' Geli#idad fled for J6SSKLB6K: KG CK:0B*AL PA8:E8S+6P ASSES A:J
SELE.E: KG GEL6C6S6.KCS ESAE' fling for a letter of administration %efore 8C .a,ati
-petition "as #ontested @.JA %y Geli#isimoCs #!ildren for & grounds<
1. Fenue improperly laid< s!ould !a$e fled petition in Laguna @domi#ileA and not in .a,ati
@#o$ers Ala%ang' de#edentCs residen#e at t!e time of !is deat!A
&. :o legal personality to sue< Geli#idad is only a mistress - marriage to .erry Lee "as still
$alid @Gamily Code pro$ision #annot %e applied retroa#ti$ely as it "ould impair t!eir
$ested rig!ts in a##ordan#e "it! Art!'e 6?<$ FCA
---t!ese "ere denied %ut Geli#idad still fled Kpposition to .J' s!o"ing e$iden#e of t!e 3<
Geli#isimo e5er#ised o;#e in Laguna' %ut "ent !ome in Ala%ang - to pro$e proper
$enue
Je#ree of a%solute di$or#e %y +a"aii dissol$ing t!e marriage of Geli#isimo to .erry Lee
- to pro$e #apa#ity to sue
8C .a,ati< Jismissed petition
CA< re$ersed and set aside
Pla#e of residen#e s!ould %e understood in as t!e personal' a#tual or p!ysi#al
!a%itation so petition "as properly fled
Art&/.&' GC s!ould %e gi$en e3e#t' allo"ing a Gilipino to remarry under P!ilippine la"
1. DK: Fenue properly laidZ MES
-!e #ases relied upon %y t!e petitioners "ere ele#tion #ases.
-t!ere is a distin#tion %et"een Lresiden#eL for purposes of ele#tion la"s and Lresiden#eL for purposes
of f5ing t!e $enue of a#tions. 6n ele#tion #ases' Lresiden#eL and Ldomi#ileL are treated as synonymous
terms' t!at is' t!e f5ed permanent residen#e to "!i#! "!en a%sent' one !as t!e intention of
returning. +o"e$er' for purposes of f5ing $enue under t!e 8ules of Court' t!e Lresiden#eL of a person
is !is personal' a#tual or p!ysi#al !a%itation' or a#tual residen#e or pla#e of a%ode' "!i#! may not
ne#essarily %e !is legal residen#e or domi#ile pro$ided !e resides t!erein "it! #ontinuity and
#onsisten#y.
&. DK: Geli#idad !ad #apa#ity to sueZ MES
As t!e legal "ife< e$en if GC not applied retroa#ti$ely' Fan Jorn $. 8omillo @19=5A
su;#iently pro$ides t!e legal %asis for !olding $alid di$or#e o%tained %y an alien
spouse against t!e Gilipino spouse @as "ell as ot!er #ases "!i#! "ere in .aCamCs %oo,A
-it loo, at t!e legislati$e intent of GC pro$ision assailed' it "as %ased on t!e Fan Jorn ruling "!i#!
$alidates a di$or#e de#ree o%tained %y an alien spouse' t!us #apa#itating t!e Gilipino spouse to
remarry again
---6n t!is #ase' as .erry Lee o%tained a di$or#e' Geli#isimo no" is #apa#itated to marry Geli#idad.
+o"e$er' as t!e marriage %et"een Geli#idad and Geli#isimo "as not su;#iently pro$en' re2a"d the
'a)e to RTC
E$en if not )ualifed as t!e legal spouse' s!e #ould still petition for a letter of
administration as an L6:E8ESEJ PA8ML "it! Art1((' CC and A1(= GC %ot! stating
t!at s!e is #onsidered a #o-o"ner of properties o"ned %y persons li$ing as !us%and
and "ife %ut "!ose marriage is $oid.
31 | P a g e
Co"C0(a Part"er)h!p)P E#e't of the )po0)e) )!("!"( a) )0ret+
ALFRE/O C.ING a"d ENCARNACION C.ING ,)- COURT OF APPEALS
SG-R- No- ;6H<H6- Fe%r0ar+ 64$ 6>>H-T
CALLE-$, SR.
FACTS: !e P!ilippine ?looming .ills Company' 6n#. @P?.C6A o%tained a loan of P9'111'111 from t!e
Allied ?an,ing Corporation @A?CA. ?y $irtue of t!is loan' t!e P?.C6' t!roug! its E5e#uti$e Fi#e-President
Alfredo C!ing' e5e#uted a promissory note for t!e said amount promising to pay on Je#em%er &&'
199= at an interest rate of 1(] per annum. As an added se#urity for t!e said loan' Alfredo C!ing'
toget!er "it! Emilio a_edo and C!ung Wiat +ua' e5e#uted a #ontinuing guaranty "it! t!e A?C %inding
t!emsel$es to -ointly and se$erally guarantee t!e payment of all t!e P?.C6 o%ligations o"ing to t!e
A?C. !e P?.C6 defaulted in t!e payment of all its loans. +en#e' on August &1' 19=1' t!e A?C fled a
#omplaint for sum of money "it! prayer for a "rit of preliminary atta#!ment against t!e P?.C6 to
#olle#t t!e P1&'/1&'99&.== e5#lusi$e of interests' penalties and ot!er %an, #!arges. 6mpleaded as #o-
defendants in t!e #omplaint "ere Alfredo C!ing' Emilio a_edo and C!ung Wiat +ua in t!eir #apa#ity as
sureties of t!e P?.C6. Citing as one of t!e grounds for t!e "rit "as t!e fraud defendants employed in
in#urring t!e o%ligations %y representing t!emsel$es as !a$ing t!e fnan#ial #apa#ity to pay t!e loan
"!en in fa#t t!ey did not !a$e su#! #apa#ity.
6n t!e meantime' on 0uly &/' 19=3' t!e deputy s!eri3 of t!e trial #ourt le$ied on atta#!ment
t!e 111'111 #ommon s!ares of City#orp sto#,s in t!e name of Alfredo C!ing. Kn :o$em%er 1/' 1993'
En#arna#ion . C!ing' assisted %y !er !us%and Alfredo C!ing' fled a .otion to Set Aside t!e le$y on
atta#!ment. S!e alleged inter alia t!at t!e 111'111 s!ares of sto#,s le$ied on %y t!e s!eri3 "ere
a#)uired %y !er and !er !us%and during t!eir marriage out of #on-ugal funds after t!e City#orp
6n$estment P!ilippines "as esta%lis!ed in 199(. Gurt!ermore' t!e inde%tedness #o$ered %y t!e
#ontinuing guaranty>#ompre!ensi$e suretys!ip #ontra#t e5e#uted %y petitioner Alfredo C!ing for t!e
a##ount of P?.C6 did not redound to t!e %eneft of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip. S!e' li,e"ise' alleged t!at
%eing t!e "ife of Alfredo C!ing' s!e "as a t!ird-party #laimant entitled to fle a motion for t!e release
of t!e properties. S!e atta#!ed t!ere"it! a #opy of !er marriage #ontra#t "it! Alfredo C!ing.
!e petitioner-spouses a$er t!at t!e sour#e of funds in t!e a#)uisition of t!e le$ied s!ares of sto#,s is
not t!e #ontrolling fa#tor "!en in$o,ing t!e presumption of t!e #on-ugal nature of sto#,s under Art.
1/1 and t!at su#! presumption su%sists e$en if t!e property is registered only in t!e name of one of
t!e spouses' in t!is #ase' petitioner Alfredo C!ing. A##ording to t!e petitioners' t!e suretys!ip
o%ligation "as not #ontra#ted in t!e pursuit of t!e petitioner-!us%andCs profession or %usiness. And
"!ere #on-ugal assets are atta#!ed in a #olle#tion suit on an o%ligation #ontra#ted %y t!e !us%and' t!e
"ife s!ould e5!aust !er motion to )uas! in t!e main #ase and not fle a separate suit. Gurt!ermore' t!e
petitioners #ontend t!at under Art. 1&5 of t!e Gamily Code' t!e petitioner-!us%andCs gratuitous
suretys!ip is null and $oid a% initio' and t!at t!e s!are of one of t!e spouses in t!e #on-ugal
partners!ip remains in#!oate until t!e dissolution and li)uidation of t!e partners!ip. !e trial #ourt
initially granted t!e lifting of t!e preliminary atta#!ment %ut on appeal' t!e de#ision "as re$ersed' t!e
appellate #ourt !olding t!at petitioner En#arna#ion C!ing "as not a proper party to t!e a#tion and t!at
e$en if s!e possessed su#! rig!t' !er a#tion "as already %arred %y la#!es. !e appellate #ourt also
ruled t!at t!e presumption under Art. 1/1 "as inappli#a%le in t!e present #ase' "!en petitioner-
spouses failed to pro$e t!e sour#e of t!e money used to a#)uire t!e s!ares of sto#,. +en#e t!is
present petition.
ISSUES:
1. Jo t!e 111'111 s!ares of sto#, in t!e name of Alfredo C!ing %elong to t!e #on-ugal
partners!ipZ
2. Is the conjugal partnership liable for the payment of the liability?
.EL/: 1. YES- Arti#le 1/1 of t!e :e" Ci$il Code pro$ides t!at all t!e properties a#)uired during t!e
marriage are presumed to %elong to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip4 unless it %e pro$ed t!at it pertains
e5#lusi$ely to t!e !us%and' or to t!e "ife. 6n an $. Court of Appeals' "e !eld t!at it is not e$en
ne#essary to pro$e t!at t!e properties "ere a#)uired "it! funds of t!e partners!ip. As long as t!e
properties "ere a#)uired %y t!e parties during t!e marriage' t!ey are presumed to %e #on-ugal in
nature. 6n fa#t' e$en "!en t!e manner in "!i#! t!e properties "ere a#)uired does not appear' t!e
presumption "ill still apply' and t!e properties "ill still %e #onsidered #on-ugal. !e presumption of t!e
#on-ugal nature of t!e properties a#)uired during t!e marriage su%sists in t!e a%sen#e of #lear'
satisfa#tory and #on$in#ing e$iden#e to o$er#ome t!e same.
6n t!is #ase' t!e e$iden#e addu#ed %y t!e petitioners in t!e 8C is t!at t!e 111'111 s!ares of sto#,s in
t!e City#orp 6n$estment P!ilippines "ere issued to and registered in its #orporate %oo,s in t!e name of
t!e petitioner-!us%and "!en t!e said #orporation "as in#orporated on .ay 1(' 1999. !is "as done
during t!e su%sisten#e of t!e marriage of t!e petitioner-spouses. !e s!ares of sto#,s are' t!us'
presumed to %e t!e #on-ugal partners!ip property of t!e petitioners. !e pri$ate respondent failed to
addu#e e$iden#e t!at t!e petitioner-!us%and a#)uired t!e sto#,s "it! !is e5#lusi$e money. !e
%arefa#ed fa#t t!at t!e s!ares of sto#,s "ere registered in t!e #orporate %oo,s of City#orp 6n$estment
P!ilippines solely in t!e name of t!e petitioner-!us%and does not #onstitute proof t!at t!e petitioner-
!us%and' not t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' o"ned t!e same.
&. NO- Gor t!e #on-ugal partners!ip to %e lia%le for a lia%ility t!at s!ould appertain to t!e
!us%and alone' t!ere must %e a s!o"ing t!at some ad$antages a##rued to t!e spouses. Certainly' to
ma,e a #on-ugal partners!ip responsi%le for a lia%ility t!at s!ould appertain alone to one of t!e
31 | P a g e
spouses is to frustrate t!e o%-e#ti$e of t!e :e" Ci$il Code to s!o" t!e utmost #on#ern for t!e solidarity
and "ell %eing of t!e family as a unit. !e !us%and' t!erefore' is denied t!e po"er to assume
unne#essary and un"arranted ris,s to t!e fnan#ial sta%ility of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.
6n t!is #ase' t!e pri$ate respondent failed to pro$e t!at t!e #on-ugal partners!ip of t!e petitioners "as
%enefted %y t!e petitioner-!us%andCs a#t of e5e#uting a #ontinuing guaranty and suretys!ip
agreement "it! t!e pri$ate respondent for and in %e!alf of P?.C6. !e #ontra#t of loan "as %et"een
t!e pri$ate respondent and t!e P?.C6' solely for t!e %eneft of t!e latter. :o presumption #an %e
inferred from t!e fa#t t!at "!en t!e petitioner-!us%and entered into an a##ommodation agreement or
a #ontra#t of surety' t!e #on-ugal partners!ip "ould t!ere%y %e %enefted. !e pri$ate respondent "as
%urdened to esta%lis! t!at su#! %eneft redounded to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip.
99999999999999999
Spo0)e 'o")e"t reF0!red to )ae of 'o"C0(a propert+
Uuery<
6s t!e "ritten #onsent of one spouse re)uired to dispose or en#um%er #on-ugal>#ommon propertyZ
!ere s!ould %e no dispute t!at eit!er spouse #annot alienate or dispose of #on-ugal property "it!out
t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er.
!e #odal referen#e to t!is is t!e se#ond paragrap! of Arti#le 9/ and 1&( of t!e Gamily Code "!i#!
states<
H6n t!e e$ent t!at one spouse is in#apa#itated or ot!er"ise una%le to parti#ipate in t!e administration
of t!e #ommon properties' t!e ot!er spouse my assume t!e sole po"ers of administration. !ese
po"ers !o"e$er do not in#lude t!e po"ers of disposition or en#um%ran#e "it!out t!e aut!ority of t!e
#ourt or t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse. 6n t!e a%sen#e of su#! aut!ority or #onsent' t!e
disposition or en#um%ran#e s!all %e $oid.I
!e Supreme Court !as ruled t!at t!e aut!ority of t!e #ourt allo"ing one spouse to dispose or
en#um%er any #ommon property may %e soug!t only if t!e ot!er spouse is in#apa#itated.
!e Supreme Court in !elma a. 0ader-.analo $s. :orma Gernandez C. Camaisa and Edil%erto Camaisa
N*.8. :o. 1(999=. 0anuary &3' &11&O referred to t!e #omment of #i$il la" e5pert Arturo olentino "!o in
!is %oo, said t!at LAs a result of t!is -oint o"ners!ip' neit!er spouse may alienate or en#um%er any
#ommon property "it!out t!e "ritten #onsent of t!e ot!er' or' if t!e ot!er spouse is in#apa#itated'
aut!orization of t!e #ourt.L
6f t!e ot!er spouse is not in#apa#itated' !is or !er "ritten #onsent to t!e disposition or en#um%ran#e is
indispensa%le' su%-e#t of #ourse to #ertain e5#eptions.
Are t!ere instan#es "!ere t!e disposal %y one spouse of #on-ugal property "it!out t!e "ritten #onsent
of t!e ot!er may %e $alidZ
Mes.
6n Estela Costuna $ersus Laureana Jomondon' N*.8. =&953 Je#em%er 19' 19=9O' t!e Supreme Court
allo"ed t!e !us%and to sell !is V s!are of t!e #on-ugal property e$en "it!out t!e #onsent of t!e "ife
%e#ause t!e "ife un-ustifa%ly "it!!eld !er #onsent to t!e sale.
!is #ase tells us t!at one spouse #annot e$en sell !is o"n V s!are "it!out t!e #onsent of t!e ot!er
spouse' sa$e only "!en t!e refusal to #onsent "as un-ustifa%le.
6n t!is #ase' t!e "ife refused to gi$e !er #onsent to t!e sale of #on-ugal land e$en if t!e pro#eeds of
t!e sale "ere to %e used for t!e si#, !us%and2s !ospital e5penses.
!e Court said t!e "ife "as greedy %e#ause pre$iously' t!e !us%and !ad e5e#uted a "ill naming !er
as t!e sole !eir.
:aturally' t!e "ife greedily refused to #onsent to t!e sale %e#ause s!e "anted t!e "!ole #on-ugal
property inta#t to !erself.
77777777777
Arcaba vs. 4aba.cura 3,a 9e :a%ocael
R !o. 14''"3, !ovember ((, (##1
FACTS:
Gran#is#o Comille and !is "ife \osima .ontallana %e#ame t!e registered o"ners of Lot :o. (39-A
lo#ated at ?alinta"a, St. and 8izal A$enue in Jipolog City' \am%oanga del :orte in 0anuary 195/.
\osima died in 19=1 !en#e Gran#is#o and !is mot!er in la" e5e#uted a deed of e5tra-udi#ial partition
"it! "ai$er of rig!ts' "!ere t!e latter "ai$ed !er s!are #onsisting of ` of t!e property in fa$or of
Gran#is#o. Sin#e Gran#is#o do not !a$e any #!ildren to ta,e #are of !im after !is retirement' !e as,ed
Leti#ia' !is nie#e' Leti#ia2s #ousin' Luz$iminda and Cirila Ar#a%a' t!e petitioner' "!o "as t!en a "ido"
and too, #are of Gran#is#o2s !ouse as "ell as t!e store inside.
A##ording to Leti#ia' Gran#is#o and Cirila "ere lo$ers sin#e t!ey slept in t!e same room. Kn t!e ot!er
!and' Erlinda a%an#ura' anot!er nie#e of Gran#is#o #laimed t!at t!e latter told !er t!at Cirila "as !is
mistress. +o"e$er' Cirila defensed !erself t!at s!e "as a mere !elper "!o #ould enter t!e master2s
%edroom "!en Gran#is#o as,ed !er to and t!at Gran#is#o "as too old for !er. S!e denied !a$ing
se5ual inter#ourse "it! Gran#is#o. D!en t!e nie#es got married' Cirila "!o "as t!en 3( year-old
"ido" started "or,ing for Gran#is#o "!o "as 95 year old "ido"er. !e latter did not pay !im any
"ages as !ouse!elper t!oug! !er family "as pro$ided "it! food and lodging. Gran#is#o2s !ealt!
deteriorated and %e#ame %edridden. a%an#ura testifed t!at Gran#is#o2s only sour#e of in#ome "as
t!e rentals from !is lot near t!e pu%li# streets.
6n 0anuary 1991' fe" mont!s %efore Gran#is#o died' !e e5e#uted a HJeed of Jonation 6nter Fi$osI
"!ere !e #eded a portion of Lot (39-A #omposed of 151 s) m.' toget!er "it! !is !ouse to Cirila "!o
3& | P a g e
a##epted t!e same. !e larger portion of &/= s) m. "as left under !is name. !is "as made in
#onsideration of t!e 11 year of fait!ful ser$i#es of t!e petitioner. Atty La#aya notarized t!e deed and
"as later registered %y Cirila as its a%solute o"ner.
6n K#toer 1991' Gran#is#o died and in 1993' t!e lot re#ei$ed %y Cirila !ad a mar,et $alue of P59'115
and assessed $alue of P&='551. !e de#edent2s nep!e"s and nie#es and !is !eirs %y intestate
su##ession alleged t!at Cirila "as t!e #ommon-la" "ife of Gran#is#o.
ISSUE: D!et!er or not t!e deed of donation inter $i$os e5e#uted %y Gran#is#o in Ar#a%a2s fa$or "as
$alid.
.EL/:
!e #ourt in t!is #ase #onsidered a su;#ient proof of #ommon la" relations!ip "!erein donation is not
$alid. !e #on#lusion "as %ased on t!e testimony of a%an#ura and #ertain do#uments %earing t!e
signature of HCirila ComilleI su#! as appli#ation for %usiness permit' sanitary permit and t!e deat!
#ertif#ate of Gran#is#o. Also' t!e fa#t t!at Cirila did not demand !er "ages is an indi#ation t!at s!e
"as not simply a #aregi$er Remployee.
Co!a%itation means more t!an se5ual inter#ourse' espe#ially "!en one of t!e parties is already old
and may no longer %e interested in se5 at t!e $ery least' #o!a%itation is a pu%li# assumption of men
and "omen !olding t!emsel$es out to t!e pu%li# as su#!.
+en#e' t!e deed of donation %y Gran#is#o in fa$or of Cirila is $oid under Art. =9 of t!e Gamily Code.
7777777777777
6 #ant fnd Spouses Lindon $s Glores
77777777777777777777
Co)t0"a ,)- /o2o"do"
1=1 SC8A 333
Sps. Amadeo and Estela Costuna %oug!t 3 par#els of land during t!eir marriage and registered t!e
same in t!e name of Amadeo. Amadeo "as later !ospitalized @on di3erent datesA for 3rd degree %urns
on !is legs. D!ile already ill due to old age' !e "ent to !is relati$es in Samar to settle !is property
do#uments. ?e#ause of !is failure to return' Estela refused to gi$e !er #onsent to t!e a#tion of partition
of t!eir #on-ugal partners!ip and t!e deed of sale allegedly fled %y Amadeo in Samar for t!e purpose
of fnan#ing !is medi#al needs. +en#e' Amadeo e5e#uted t!e mentioned deed of sale' "!i#! sold !is V
indeterminate s!are on t!e 3-par#el property' in fa$our of Laureana Jomondon. D!en Amadeo died'
Estela soug!t t!e e5e#ution of AmadeoQs "ill' e5e#uted prior to !is trip to Samar' "!i#! named !er as
sole. Laureana opposed t!e motion' #laimed !er V s!are in t!e property and soug!t to !a$e Estela
gi$e #onsent to t!e deed of sale.
CA<
- !us%and may not sell real estate "it!out #onsent unless @1A sale of personal properties @&A real
properties a#)uired %efore :CC @3A real properties a#)uired after :CC %ut "ife is in a leprosarium'
de#lared spendt!rift or under #i$il interdi#tion' @(A purpose is to pay #on-ugal lia%ilities @5A purpose is to
se#ure future of #!ildren or fnis!ing a #areer.
- Support of spouse %y #on-ugal property is not relie$ed "!en t!ey do not li$e on t!e same roof.
ISSUE:
- @1A DK: deed of sale s!ould %e nullifed sin#e it "aas "it!out t!e #onsent of t!e "ife
- @&A DK: #on-ugal partners!ip s!ould %e made lia%le for payment of !ospital and
medi#al e5penses of Amadeo "!o allegedly a%andoned #on-ugal !ome and "ife
.EL/:
@1A :K
- Amadeo soug!t t!e petitonerQs #onsent %ut petitioner "it!!eld it. +o"e$er "!en deed of sale "as
made' s!e did not!ing to impugn it and assailed it for t!e frst time "!en 8espondent fled a #ase in
8C-UC.
- Amadeo only sold !is V s!are of #ommunity property. +er s!are in t!e property is inta#t.
- D!en #onsent is unreasona%ly "it!!eld' one s!ould #onsider la" as falling "it!in t!e re#ognized
e5#eptions
- @&A MES
it falls under t!e o%ligations prote#ted %y Art 1/1 of CC sin#e it gi$es a dis#erni%le ad$antage or good
to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' dire#tly or indire#tly. +ealt! "ould o%$iously %eneft t!eir #on-ugal
partners!ip.
7777777777777777
EACINTO SAGUI/ ,)- CA$ RTC$ BRANC. =H$ BOAC$ MARIN/UIUE a"d GINA S- REY
FACTS:
Se$enteen-year old *ina S. 8ey "as married' %ut separated de fa#to from !er !us%and' "!en s!e met
and #o!a%ited "it! petitioner 0a#into Saguid 6n 199/' t!e #ouple de#ided to separate and end up t!eir
9-year #o!a%itation. pri$ate respondent fled a #omplaint for Partition and 8e#o$ery of Personal
Property "it! 8e#ei$ers!ip against t!e petitioner. S!e prayed t!at s!e %e de#lared t!e sole o"ner of
t!ese personal properties and t!at t!e amount of P91'111.11' representing !er #ontri%ution to t!e
33 | P a g e
#onstru#tion of t!eir !ouse' %e reim%ursed to !er.
ISSUE: DK: t!ere are a#tual #ontri%utions from t!e parties
.EL/:
it is not disputed t!at *ina and 0a#into "ere not #apa#itated to marry ea#! ot!er %e#ause t!e former
"as $alidly married to anot!er man at t!e time of !er #o!a%itation "it! t!e latter. !eir property
regime t!erefore is go$erned %y Arti#le 1(= of t!e Gamily Code' "!i#! applies to %igamous marriages'
adulterous relations!ips' relations!ips in a state of #on#u%inage' relations!ips "!ere %ot! man and
"oman are married to ot!er persons' and multiple allian#es of t!e same married man. Bnder t!is
regime' Haonly t!e properties a#)uired %y %ot! of t!e parties t!roug! t!eir a#tual -oint #ontri%ution of
money' property' or industry s!all %e o"ned %y t!em in #ommon in proportion to t!eir respe#ti$e
#ontri%utions aI Proof of a#tual #ontri%ution is re)uired.
E$en if #o!a%itation #ommen#ed %efore family #ode' arti#le 1(= applies %e#ause t!is pro$ision "as
intended pre#isely to fll up t!e !iatus in Arti#le 1(( of t!e Ci$il Code.
!e fa#t t!at t!e #ontro$erted property "as titled in t!e name of t!e parties to an adulterous
relations!ip is not su;#ient proof of #o-o"ners!ip a%sent e$iden#e of a#tual #ontri%ution in t!e
a#)uisition of t!e property.
6n t!e #ase at %ar' t e #ontro$ersy #enters on t!e !ouse and personal properties of t!e parties. Pri$ate
respondent alleged in !er #omplaint t!at s!e #ontri%uted P91'111.11 for t!e #ompletion of t!eir !ouse.
+o"e$er' no"!ere in !er testimony did s!e spe#ify t!e e5tent of !er #ontri%ution. D!at appears in t!e
re#ord are re#eipts in !er name for t!e pur#!ase of #onstru#tion materials.
D!ile t!ere is no )uestion t!at %ot! parties #ontri%uted in t!eir -oint a##ount deposit' t!ere is'
!o"e$er' no su;#ient proof of t!e e5a#t amount of t!eir respe#ti$e s!ares t!erein. Pursuant to Arti#le
1(= of t!e Gamily Code' in t!e a%sen#e of proof of e5tent of t!e parties2 respe#ti$e #ontri%ution' t!eir
s!are s!all %e presumed to %e e)ual.
77777777777777777
CORNELIA MATABUENA ,)- PETRONILA CERJANTES
L-&=99 @3= SC8A &=(A
.ar#! 31' 1991
FACTS:
6n 195/' !erein appellant2s %rot!er Geli5 .ata%uena donated a pie#e of lot to !is #ommon-
la" spouse' !erein appellee Petronila Cer$antes. Geli5 and Petronila got married only in 19/& or si5
years after t!e deed of donation "as e5e#uted. Gi$e mont!s later' or Septem%er 13' 19/&' Geli5 died.
!ereafter' appellant Cornelia .ata%uena' %y reason of %eing t!e only sister and nearest #ollateral
relati$e of t!e de#eased' fled a #laim o$er t!e property' %y $irtue of a an a;da$it of self-ad-udi#ation
e5e#uted %y !er in 19/&' !ad t!e land de#lared in !er name and paid t!e estate and in!eritan#e ta5es
t!ereon. !e lo"er #ourt of Sorsogon de#lared t!at t!e donation "as $alid inasmu#! as it "as made at
t!e time "!en Geli5 and Petronila "ere not yet spouses' rendering Arti#le 133 of t!e Ci$il Code
inappli#a%le.
ISSUE: D!et!er or not t!e %an on donation %et"een spouses during a marriage applies to a #ommon-
la" relations!ip.
.EL/:
D!ile Arti#le 133 of t!e Ci$il Code #onsiders as $oid a donation %et"een t!e spouses during
marriage' poli#y #onsideration of t!e most e5igent #!ara#ter as "ell as t!e di#tates of morality
re)uires t!at t!e same pro!i%ition s!ould apply to a #ommon-la" relations!ip.
As stated in ?uena$entura $s. ?autista @51 K* 3/99' 195(A' if t!e poli#y of t!e la" is to
pro!i%it donations in fa$or of t!e ot!er #onsort and !is des#endants %e#ause of fear of undue and
improper pressure and inTuen#e upon t!e donor' t!en t!ere is e$ery reason to apply t!e same
pro!i%iti$e poli#y to persons li$ing toget!er as !us%and and "ife "it!out t!e %eneft of nuptials.
!e la#, of $alidity of t!e donation %y t!e de#eased to appellee does not ne#essarily result
in appellant !a$ing e5#lusi$e rig!t to t!e disputed property. As a "ido"' Cer$antes is entitled to one-
!alf of t!e in!eritan#e' and t!e sur$i$ing sister to t!e ot!er !alf.
Arti#le 1111' Ci$il Code< S!ould %rot!ers and sisters or t!eir #!ildren sur$i$e "it! t!e "ido"
or "ido"er' t!e latter s!all %e entitled to one-!alf of t!e in!eritan#e and t!e %rot!ers and sisters or
t!eir #!ildren to t!e ot!er !alf.
77777777777777777
F0e"te) ,- Co"rado Ro'a$ G-R- ;5G=>6$ Apr! 6>;>
FACTS< Kn' K#t 11' 19=&' ar#iano 8o#a %oug!t a 35=-s)uare meter lot in \am%ales from !is mot!er.
Si5 years later in 19==' ar#iano o3ered to sell t!e lot to t!e petitioners Guentes spouses t!roug! t!e
!elp of Atty. Plagata "!o "ould prepare t!e do#uments and re)uirements to #omplete t!e sale. 6n t!e
agreement %et"een ar#iano and Guentes spouses t!ere "ill %e a P!p /1'111 do"n payment and P!p
1(1'111 "ill %e paid upon t!e remo$al of ar#iano of #ertain stru#tures on t!e land and after
t!e #onsent of t!e estranged "ife of ar#iano' 8osario' "ould %e attained. Atty. Plagata t!us "ent
a%out to #omplete su#! tas,s and #laimed t!at !e "ent to.anila to get t!e signature of 8osario %ut
notarized t!e do#ument at \am%oanga . !e deed of sale "as e5e#uted 0anuary 11' 19=9. As time
passed' ar#iano and 8osario died "!ile t!e Guentes spouses and possession and #ontrol o$er t!e lot.
Eig!t years later in 1999' t!e #!ildren of ar#iano and 8osario fled a #ase to annul t!e saleand
re#on$ey t!e property on t!e ground t!at t!e sale "as $oid sin#e t!e #onsent of 8osario "as not
attained and t!at 8osarios2 signature "as a mere forgery. !e Guentes spouses #laim t!at t!e a#tion
!as pres#ri%ed sin#e an a#tion to annul a sale on t!e ground of fraud is ( years from dis#o$ery.
3( | P a g e
!e 8C ruled in fa$or of t!e Guentes spouses ruling t!at t!ere "as no forgery' t!at t!e testimony of
Atty. Plagata "!o "itnessed t!esigning of 8osario must %e gi$en "eig!t' and t!at t!e a#tion !as
already pres#ri%ed.
Kn t!e ot!er !and' t!e CA re$ersed t!e ruling of t!e CA stating t!at t!e a#tion !as not pres#ri%ed
sin#e t!e appli#a%le la" is t!e 1951Ci$il Code "!i#! pro$ided t!at t!e sale of Con-ugal Property
"it!out t!e #onsent of t!e ot!er spouse is $oida%le and t!e a#tion must %e %roug!t "it!in 11 years.
*i$en t!at t!e transa#tion "as in 19=9 and t!e a#tion "as %roug!t in 1999 !en#e it "as "ell "it!in t!e
pres#ripti$e period.
ISSUES: ;. D!et!er or not 8osario2s signature on t!e do#ument of#onsent to !er !us%and ar#iano2s
sale of t!eir #on-ugal land to t!e Guentes spouses "as forged4
6. D!et!er or not t!e 8o#as2 a#tion for t!e de#laration of nullity of t!at sale to t!e spouses already
pres#ri%ed4 and
4. D!et!er or not only 8osario' t!e "ife "!ose #onsent "as not !ad' #ould %ring t!e a#tion to annul
t!at sale.
RULING: ;- !e SC ruled t!at t!ere "as forgery due to t!e di3eren#e in t!e signatures of 8osario
in t!e do#ument gi$ing#onsent and anot!er do#ument e5e#uted at t!e same time period. !e SC
noted t!at t!e CA "as #orre#t in ruling t!at t!e !ea$y !and"riting in t!e do#ument "!i#!
stated #onsent "as #ompletely di3erent from t!e sample signature. !ere "as no e$iden#e pro$ided to
e5plain "!y t!ere "as su#! di3eren#e in t!e !and"riting.
6. Alt!oug! ar#iano and 8osario "as married during t!e 1951 #i$il #ode' t!e sale "as done in 19=9'
after t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code. !e Gamily Code applies to Con-ugal Partners!ips already
esta%lis!ed at t!e ena#tment of t!e Gamily Code. !e sale of #on-ugal property done %y ar#iano
"it!out t!e #onsent of 8osario is #ompletely $oid under Art 1&( of t!e family #ode. Dit! t!at' it is a
gi$en fa#t t!at assailing a $oid #ontra#t ne$er pres#ri%es. Kn t!e argument t!at t!e a#tion !as already
pres#ri%ed %ased on t!e dis#o$ery of t!e fraud' t!at pres#ripti$e period applied to t!e Guentes spouses
sin#e it "as t!em "!o s!ould !a$e assailed su#! #ontra#t due to t!e fraud %ut t!ey failed to do so. Kn
t!e ot!er !and' t!e a#tion to assail a sale %ased on no #onsent gi$en %y t!e ot!er spouse does not
pres#ri%e sin#e it is a $oid #ontra#t.
4. 6t is argued %y t!e Spouses Guentes t!at it is only t!e spouse' 8osario' "!o #an fle su#! a #ase to
assail t!e $alidity of t!e sale %ut gi$en t!at 8osario "as already dead no one #ould %ring t!e a#tion
anymore. !e SC ruled t!at su#! position is "rong sin#e as stated a%o$e' t!at sale "as $oid from t!e
%eginning. Conse)uently' t!e land remained t!e property of ar#iano and 8osario despite t!at sale.
D!en t!e t"o died' t!ey passed on t!e o"ners!ip of t!e property to t!eir !eirs' namely' t!e 8o#as. As
la"ful o"ners' t!e 8o#as !ad t!e rig!t' under Arti#le (&9 of t!e Ci$il Code' to e5#lude any person from
its en-oyment and disposal.
7777777777777
G-R- No- ;5;=>H$ A0(0)t >5$ 6>;4
BOBBY TAN$ <etitioner' '. GRACE AN/RA/E$ PROCESO AN/RA/E$ ER-$ C.ARITY A- SANTIAGO$
.ENRY AN/RA/E$ AN/REW AN/RA/E$ EASMIN BLAQA$ GLORY AN/RA/E$ MIRIAM ROSE
AN/RA/E$ AN/ EOSEP. AN/RA/E$ $es)ondents.
G-R- No- ;56>;5
GRACE AN/RA/E$ C.ARITY A- SANTIAGO$ .ENRY AN/RA/E$ AN/REW AN/RA/E$ EASMIN
BLAQA$ MIRIAM ROSE AN/RA/E$ AN/ EOSEP. AN/RA/E$ <etitioners' '. BOBBY
TAN$$es)ondent.
/ E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE$ -.:

?efore t!e Court are #onsolidated petitions for re$ie" on certiorari
1
assailing t!e Je#ision
&
dated 0uly
&/' &115 and 8esolution
3
dated .ar#! 3' &11/ of t!e Court of Appeals @CAA in CA-*.8. CF :o. 919=9
"!i#! a;rmed "it! modif#ation t!e 0udgment
(
dated April /' &111 of t!e 8egional rial Court of Ce%u
City' ?ran#! 19 @8CA in Ci$il Case :o. CE? &19/9.
The Fa't)
8osario Fda. Je Andrade @8osarioA "as t!e registered o"ner of four par#els of land ,no"n as Lots 19'
1=' 19' and &1
5
situated in Ce%u City @su%-e#t propertiesA "!i#! s!e mortgaged to and su%se)uently
fore#losed %y one Simon
/
Jiu @SimonA.
9
D!en t!e redemption period "as a%out to e5pire' 8osario
soug!t t!e assistan#e of ?o%%y an @?o%%yA "!o agreed to redeem t!e su%-e#t properties.
=
!ereafter'
8osario sold t!e same to ?o%%y and !er son' Pro#eso Andrade' 0r. @Pro#eso' 0r.A' for P111'111.11 as
e$iden#ed %y a Jeed of A%solute Sale
9
dated April &9' 19=3 @su%-e#t deed of saleA. Kn 0uly &/' 19=3'
Pro#eso' 0r. e5e#uted a Jeed of Assignment'
11
#eding unto ?o%%y !is rig!ts and interests o$er t!e
su%-e#t properties in #onsideration of P51'111.11. !e Jeed of Assignment "as signed %y' among
ot!ers' +enry Andrade @+enryA' one of 8osario2s sons' as instrumental "itness. :ot"it!standing t!e
aforementioned Jeed of Assignment' ?o%%y e5tended an Kption to ?uy
11
t!e su%-e#t properties in
fa$or of Pro#eso' 0r.' gi$ing t!e latter until 9<11 in t!e e$ening of 0uly 31' 19=( to pur#!ase t!e same for
t!e sum of P311'111.11. D!en Pro#eso' 0r. failed to do so' ?o%%y #onsolidated !is o"ners!ip o$er t!e
35 | P a g e
su%-e#t properties' and t!e Cs
1&
t!erefor "ere issued in !is name.
Kn K#to%er 9' 1999' 8osario2s #!ildren' namely' *ra#e' Pro#eso' 0r.' +enry' Andre"' *lory' .iriam 8ose'
0osep! @all surnamed AndradeA' 0asmin ?laza' and C!arity A. Santiago @AndradesA' fled a
#omplaint
13
for re#on$eyan#e and annulment of deeds of #on$eyan#e and damages against ?o%%y
%efore t!e 8C' do#,eted as Ci$il Case :o. CE? &19/9. 6n t!eir #omplaint' t!ey alleged t!at t!e
transa#tion %et"een 8osario and ?o%%y @su%-e#t transa#tionA "as not one of sale %ut "as a#tually an
e)uita%le mortgage "!i#! "as entered into to se#ure 8osario2s inde%tedness "it! ?o%%y. !ey also
#laimed t!at sin#e t!e su%-e#t properties "ere in!erited %y t!em from t!eir fat!er' Pro#eso Andrade'
Sr. @Pro#eso' Sr.A' t!e su%-e#t properties "ere #on-ugal in nature' and t!us' 8osario !ad no rig!t to
dispose of t!eir respe#ti$e s!ares t!erein. 6n t!is lig!t' t!ey argued t!at t!ey remained as #o-o"ners of
t!e su%-e#t properties toget!er "it! ?o%%y' despite t!e issuan#e of t!e Cs in !is name.
6n !is defense' ?o%%y #ontended t!at t!e su%-e#t properties "ere solely o"ned %y 8osario per t!e Cs
issued in !er name
1(
and t!at !e !ad $alidly a#)uired t!e same upon Pro#eso' 0r.2s failure to e5er#ise
!is option to %uy %a#, t!e su%-e#t properties.
15
+e also interposed t!e defenses of pres#ription and
la#!es against t!e Andrades.
1/
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
The RTC R0!"(
Kn April /' &111' t!e 8C rendered a 0udgment
19
dismissing t!e Andrades2 #omplaint.
6t ruled t!at t!e su%-e#t transa#tion "as a bona 9de sale and not an e)uita%le mortgage as #an %e
gleaned from its terms and #onditions' noting furt!er t!at t!e su%-e#t deed of sale "as not e$en
)uestioned %y t!e Andrades at t!e time of its e5e#ution. As Pro#eso' 0r. failed to e5er#ise !is option to
%uy %a#, t!e su%-e#t properties' t!e titles t!ereto "ere $alidly #onsolidated in ?o%%y2s fa$or' resulting
to t!e issuan#e of Cs in !is name "!i#! are deemed to %e #on#lusi$e proof of !is o"ners!ip
t!ereto.
1=
As regards t!e nature of t!e su%-e#t properties' t!e 8C found t!at t!ey Happeared to %e t!e
e5#lusi$e properties of 8osario.I
19
Ginally' it found t!at t!e Andrades2 #laim o$er t!e su%-e#t properties
!ad already pres#ri%ed and t!at lac&es !ad already set in.
&1
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
Jissatisfed' t!e Andrades ele$ated t!e matter on appeal.
The CA R0!"(
Kn 0uly &/' &115' t!e CA rendered t!e assailed Je#ision
&1
up!olding in part t!e 8C2s ruling.
6t found t!at t!e su%-e#t deed of sale "as indeed "!at it purports to %e' i.e.' a bona 9de #ontra#t of
sale. 6n t!is a##ord' it denied t!e Andrades2 #laim t!at t!e su%-e#t transa#tion "as an e)uita%le
mortgage sin#e t!eir allegation t!at t!e pur#!ase pri#e "as unusually lo" "as left unsupported %y any
e$iden#e. Also' t!eir a$erment t!at t!ey !a$e %een in #ontinuous possession of t!e su%-e#t properties
"as %elied %y t!e testimony of Andre" Andrade @Andre"A "!o stated t!at ?o%%y "as already in
possession of t!e same.
&&
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
:e$ert!eless' t!e CA ruled t!at t!e su%-e#t properties %elong to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip of 8osario
and !er late !us%and' Pro#eso' Sr.' and t!us' s!e #o-o"ned t!e same toget!er "it! !er #!ildren' t!e
Andrades.
&3
6n t!is respe#t' t!e sale "as $alid only "it! respe#t to 8osario2s pro-indi$iso s!are in t!e
su%-e#t properties and it #annot pre-udi#e t!e s!are of t!e Andrades sin#e t!ey did not #onsent to t!e
sale.
&(
6n e3e#t' a resulting trust "as #reated %et"een ?o%%y and t!e Andrades
&5
and' as su#!'
pres#ription and>or la#!es !as yet to set in so as to %ar t!em from instituting t!e instant
#ase.
&/
A##ordingly' t!e CA ordered ?o%%y to re#on$ey to t!e Andrades t!eir s!are in t!e su%-e#t
properties.
&9
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
6n $ie" of t!e CA2s pronoun#ement' t!e parties fled t!eir respe#ti$e motions for re#onsideration. Gor
t!e Andrades2 part' t!ey soug!t t!e re#onsideration of t!e CA2s fnding as to its #!ara#terization of t!e
su%-e#t transa#tion as one of sale' insisting t!at it is a#tually an e)uita%le mortgage.
&=
As for ?o%%y2s
part' !e maintained t!at t!e sale s!ould !a$e #o$ered t!e entirety of t!e su%-e#t properties and not
only 8osario2s pro-indi$iso s!are.
&9
?ot! motions for re#onsideration "ere' !o"e$er' denied %y t!e CA
in a 8esolution
31
dated .ar#! 3' &11/.
+en#e' t!e present #onsolidated petitions.
I))0e) Before the Co0rt
!e present #ontro$ersy re$ol$es around t!e CA2s #!ara#terization of t!e su%-e#t properties as "ell as
of t!e su%-e#t transa#tion %et"een 8osario and ?o%%y.
6n *.8. :o. 19&119' t!e Andrades su%mit t!at t!e CA erred in ruling t!at t!e su%-e#t transa#tion is in
t!e nature of a sale' "!ile in *.8. :o. 19191(' ?o%%y #ontends t!at t!e CA erred in ruling t!at t!e
su%-e#t properties are #on-ugal in nature.
The Co0rt3) R0!"(
A. C;arac%eriza%io. of %;e sub<ec% %ra.sac%io..
Settled is t!e rule t!at "!en t!e trial #ourtCs fa#tual fndings !a$e %een a;rmed %y t!e CA' said
fndings are generally #on#lusi$e and %inding upon t!e Court' and may no longer %e re$ie"ed on 8ule
(5 petitions.
31
D!ile t!ere e5ists e5#eptions to t!is rule R su#! as "!en t!e CA2s and 8C2s fndings are
in #onTi#t "it! ea#! ot!er
3&
R t!e Court o%ser$es t!at none applies "it! respe#t to t!e ruling t!at t!e
3/ | P a g e
su%-e#t transa#tion "as one of sale and not an e)uita%le mortgage. 8e#ords readily re$eal t!at %ot!
t!e 8C and t!e CA o%ser$ed t!at t!ere is no #lear and #on$in#ing e$iden#e to s!o" t!at t!e parties
agreed upon a mortgage. +en#e' a%sent any glaring error t!erein or any ot!er #ompelling reason to
!old ot!er"ise' t!is fnding s!ould no" %e deemed as #on#lusi$e and perfor#e must stand. As e#!oed
in t!e #ase of A*)o '. 8A<
33
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
5 5 5 Ga#tual fndings of t!e Court of Appeals are #on#lusi$e on t!e parties and not re$ie"a%le %y t!is
Court R and t!ey #arry e$en more "eig!t "!en t!e Court of Appeals a;rms t!e fa#tual fndings of t!e
trial #ourt' and in t!e a%sen#e of any s!o"ing t!at t!e fndings #omplained of are totally de$oid of
support in t!e e$iden#e on re#ord' or t!at t!ey are so glaringly erroneous as to #onstitute serious
a%use of dis#retion' su#! fndings must stand.
3(
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
Conse)uently' t!e Andrades2 petition in G-R- No- ;56>;5 must t!erefore %e denied.
:. C;arac%eriza%io. of %;e sub<ec% proper%ies.
Dit! respe#t to t!e nature of t!e su%-e#t properties' t!e #ourts a 6uo "ere at $arian#e su#! t!at t!e
8C' on t!e one !and' ruled t!at t!e said properties "ere e5#lusi$e properties of 8osario'
35
"!ile t!e
CA' on t!e ot!er !and' pronoun#ed t!at t!ey are #on-ugal in nature.
3/
6n t!is regard' t!e #onse)uent
#ourse of a#tion "ould %e for t!e Court to #ondu#t a re-e5amination of t!e e$iden#e if only to
determine "!i#! among t!e t"o is #orre#t'
39
as an e5#eption to t!e pros#ription in 8ule (5 petitions.
Pertinent to t!e resolution of t!is se#ond issue is Arti#le 1/1 of t!e Ci$il Code
3=
"!i#! states t!at HNaOll
property of t!e marriage is presumed to %elong to t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' unless it %e pro$ed t!at it
pertains e5#lusi$ely to t!e !us%and or to t!e "ife.I Gor t!is presumption to apply' t!e party in$o,ing
t!e same must' !o"e$er' preliminarily pro$e t!at t!e property "as indeed a#)uired during t!e
marriage. As !eld in >o '. Ca*ane<
39
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
5 5 5 As a condition sine 6ua non for t!e operation of NArti#le 1/1O in fa$or of t!e #on-ugal partners!ip'
t!e party "!o in$o,es t!e presumption must frst pro$e t!at t!e property "as a#)uired during t!e
marriage.
6n ot!er "ords' t!e presumption in fa$or of #on-ugality does not operate if t!ere is no s!o"ing
of +&en t!e property alleged to %e #on-ugal "as a#)uired. .oreo$er' t!e presumption may %e re%utted
only "it! strong' #lear' #ategori#al and #on$in#ing e$iden#e. !ere must %e stri#t proof of t!e e5#lusi$e
o"ners!ip of one of t!e spouses' and t!e %urden of proof rests upon t!e party asserting it.
(1
@Citations
omittedA
Corollarily' as de#reed in Daldez '. 8A'
(1
t!e presumption under Arti#le 1/1 #annot %e made to apply
"!ere t!ere is no s!o"ing as to "!en t!e property alleged to %e #on-ugal "as a#)uired<
5 5 5 !e issuan#e of t!e title in t!e name solely of one spouse is not determinati$e of t!e #on-ugal
nature of t!e property' sin#e t!ere is no s!o"ing t!at it "as a#)uired during t!e marriage of t!e
Spouses Carlos Faldez' Sr. and 0osefna L. Faldez. !e presumption under Arti#le 1/1 of t!e :e" Ci$il
Code' t!at property a#)uired during marriage is #on-ugal' does not apply "!ere t!ere is no s!o"ing as
to "!en t!e property alleged to %e #on-ugal "as a#)uired. !e presumption #annot pre$ail "!en t!e
title is in t!e name of only one spouse and t!e rig!ts of inno#ent t!ird parties are in$ol$ed. .oreo$er'
"!en t!e property is registered in t!e name of only one spouse and t!ere is no s!o"ing as to "!en t!e
property "as a#)uired %y same spouse' t!is is an indi#ation t!at t!e property %elongs e5#lusi$ely to
t!e said spouse.
6n t!is #ase' t!ere is no e$iden#e to indi#ate "!en t!e property "as a#)uired %y petitioner 0osefna.
!us' "e agree "it! petitioner 0osefna2s de#laration in t!e deed of a%solute sale s!e e5e#uted in fa$or
of t!e respondent t!at s!e "as t!e a%solute and sole o"ner of t!e property. 5 5 5.
(&
#rala" $irtuala"
li%rary
6n t!is #ase' re#ords re$eal t!at t!e #on-ugal partners!ip of 8osario and !er !us%and "as terminated
upon t!e latter2s deat! on August 9' 199=
(3
"!ile t!e transfer #ertif#ates of title o$er t!e su%-e#t
properties "ere issued on Septem%er &=' 1999 and solely in t!e name of H8osario Fda. de Andrade' of
legal age' "ido"' Gilipino.I
((
Kt!er t!an t!eir %are allegation' no e$iden#e "as addu#ed %y t!e
Andrades to esta%lis! t!at t!e su%-e#t properties "ere pro#ured during t!e #o$erture of t!eir parents
or t!at t!e same "ere %oug!t "it! #on-ugal funds. .oreo$er' 8osario2s de#laration t!at s!e is t!e
a%solute o"ner of t!e disputed par#els of land in t!e su%-e#t deed of sale
(5
"as not disputed %y !er
son Pro#eso' 0r.' "!o "as a party to t!e same. +en#e' %y $irtue of t!ese in#idents' t!e Court up!olds
t!e 8C2s fnding
(/
t!at t!e su%-e#t properties "ere e5#lusi$e or sole properties of 8osario.
?esides' t!e Court o%ser$es t!at lac&es !ad already set in' t!ere%y pre#luding t!e Andrades from
pursuing t!eir #laim. Case la" defnes lac&es as t!e Hfailure to assert a rig!t for an unreasona%le and
une5plained lengt! of time' "arranting a presumption t!at t!e party entitled to assert it !as eit!er
a%andoned or de#lined to assert it.I
(9
#rala" $irtuala" li%rary
8e#ords dis#lose t!at t!e Andrades too, 1( years %efore fling t!eir #omplaint for re#on$eyan#e in
1999. !e argument t!at t!ey did not ,no" a%out t!e su%-e#t transa#tion is #learly %elied %y t!e fa#ts
on re#ord. 6t is undisputed t!at Pro#eso' 0r. "as a #o-$endee in t!e su%-e#t deed of sale'
(=
"!ile +enry
"as an instrumental "itness to t!e Jeed of Assignment
(9
and Kption to ?uy
51
%ot! dated 0uly &/' 19=3.
Li,e"ise' 8osario2s sons' Pro#eso' 0r. and Andre"' did not )uestion t!e e5e#ution of t!e su%-e#t deed of
sale made %y t!eir mot!er to ?o%%y.
51
!ese in#idents #an %ut only lead to t!e #on#lusion t!at t!ey
"ere "ell-a"are of t!e su%-e#t transa#tion and yet only pursued t!eir #laim 1( years after t!e sale "as
e5e#uted.
Jue to t!e a%o$e-stated reasons' ?o%%y2s petition in G-R- No- ;5;=>H is !ere%y granted.
39 | P a g e
W.EREFORE' t!e Court !ere%y @aA GRANTS t!e petition of ?o%%y an in *.8. :o. 19191(4 and
@%A/ENIES t!e petition of *ra#e Andrade' C!arity A. Santiago' +enry Andrade' Andre" Andrade'
0asmin ?laza' .iriam 8ose Andrade' and 0osep! Andrade in *.8. :o. 19&119. A##ordingly' t!e Je#ision
dated 0uly &/' &115 and 8esolution dated .ar#! 3' &11/ of t!e Court of Appeals in CA-*.8. CF :o.
919=9 are !ere%y REJERSE/ and SET ASI/E' and t!e April /' &111 Je#ision of t!e 8egional rial
Court of Ce%u City' ?ran#! 19 in Ci$il Case :o. CE? &19/9 is REINSTATE/.
SO OR/ERE/-
777777777777
P8KPE8M 8ELA6K: 6: A .6^EJ .A886A*E
C.EESMAN J IAC ;=4 SCRA =4
G-R- No- 5HG44 Ea"0ar+ 6;$ ;==;
GACS< !is appeal #on#erns t!e attempt %y an Ameri#an #itizen @petitioner !omas C!eesmanA to
annulEfor la#, of #onsent on !is partEt!e sale %y !is Gilipino "ife @CriseldaA of a residential lot and
%uilding to Estelita Padilla
bJe#em%er (' 1991 R !omas C!eesman and Criselda C!eesman "ere married %ut !a$e %een
separated sin#e Ge%ruary 15' 19=1
b0une (' 199( R a Jeed of Sale and ransfer of Possessory 8ig!ts "as e5e#uted %y Armando Altares'
#on$eying a par#el of land in fa$or of HCriselda C!eesman' married to !omas C!eesman.I !omas'
alt!oug! a"are of t!e deed' did not o%-e#t to t!e transfer %eing made only to !is "ife. a5 de#larations
for t!e said property "ere issued in t!e name of Criselda C!eesman alone and s!e assumed e5#lusi$e
management and administration of t!e property
b 0uly 1' 19=1 R Criselda sold t!e property to Estelita Padilla "it!out ,no"ledge and #onsent of !omas
b0uly 31' 19=1 R !omas fled a suit for t!e annulment of t!e sale on t!e ground t!at t!e transa#tion
!ad %een e5e#uted "it!out !is ,no"ledge and #onsent. Criselda fled an ans"er alleging t!at t!e
property sold "as parap!ernal' !a$ing pur#!ased t!e property from !er o"n money4 t!at !omas' an
Ameri#an "as dis)ualifed to !a$e any interest or rig!t of o"ners!ip in t!e land and4 t!at Estelita "as
a %uyer in good fait!
bJuring t!e trial' it "as found out t!at t!e transfer of property too, pla#e during t!e e5isten#e of t!eir
marriage as it "as a#)uired on 0une (' 199(
b0une &(' 19=& R 8C de#lared t!e sale e5e#uted %y Criselda $oid a% initio and ordered t!e deli$ery of
t!e property to !omas as administrator of t!e #on-ugal property
b!omas appealed to 6AC "!ere !e assailed t!e granting of Estelita2s petition for relief and resolution
of matters not su%-e#t of said petition4 in de#laring $alid t!e sale to Estelita "it!out !is ,no"ledge and
#onsent. Kn 0anuary 9' 19=/' 6AC a;rmed summary -udgment de#ision
6SSBE< D!et!er or not t!e "ife #an dispose of t!e property in )uestion4 D!et!er or not C!eesman'
%eing an Ameri#an #itizen' #an )uestion t!e sale +ELJ< Se#tion 1(' Art. ^6F of 1993 Constitution
pro$ides t!at< Hsa$e in #ases of !ereditary su##ession' no pri$ate land s!all %e transferred or #on$eyed
e5#ept to indi$iduals' #orporations' or asso#iations )ualifed to a#)uire or !old lands of t!e pu%li#
domain.I !us' assuming t!at it "as !is intention t!at t!e lot in )uestion %e pur#!ased %y !im and !is
"ife' !e a#)uired no rig!t "!atsoe$er o$er t!e property %y $irtue of t!at pur#!ase4 and in attempting
to a#)uire a rig!t or interest in land' !e "as ,no"ingly $iolating t!e Constitution.
As su#!' t!e sale to !im "as null and $oid. At any rate' C!eesman !ad and !as :K CAPAC6M K
UBES6K: +E SB?SEUBE:SALE KG +E SA.E P8KPE8M ?M +6S D6GE K: +E +EK8M +A 6: SK
JK6:* +E6S .E8ELM E^E8C6S6:* +E P8E8K*A6FE KG A +BS?A:J 6: 8ESPEC KGCK:0B*AL
P8KPE8M. o sustain su#! a t!eory "ould permit indire#t #ontro$ersion of t!e Constitutional
pro!i%ition.
6f t!e property "ere to %e de#lared #on-ugal' t!is "ould a##ord to t!e alien !us%and a not insu%stantial
interest and rig!t o$er land' as !e "ould t!en !a$e a de#isi$e $ote as to its transfer or disposition. !is
is a rig!t t!at t!e Constitution does not permit !im to !a$e.
E$en if t!e "ife did use #on-ugal funds to ma,e t!e a#)uisition' !is re#o$ering and !olding t!e property
#annot %e "arranted as it is against t!e #onstitution. Conse)uently' Estelita is a pur#!aser in good
fait! sin#e s!e ,ne" t!at !omas #annot inter$ene in t!e sale or disposition of t!e said property.
JEC6S6K:< !e Court AGG68.EJ t!e appealed de#ision.
7777777777777

WILLEM BEUMER$
Pet!t!o"er$ ,)-
AJELINA AMORES$
Re)po"de"t-G-R- No- ;=?<5> /e'e2%er 4$ 6>;6
SUMMARY
Jut#! national see,s to reim%urse funds !e in$ested in allo"ing !is Gilipina spouse to%uy par#els of
Gilipino land after t!eir marriage "as de#lared null.
GACS
Petitioner' a Jut#! :ational' and respondent' a Gilipina' married in .ar#! &9'
19=1. After se$eral years' t!e 8C de#lared t!e nullity of t!eir marriage. Conse)uently' petitioner fled
a Petition for Jissolution of Con-ugal Partners!ip dated praying for t!e distri%ution of properties
#laimed to !a$e %een a#)uired during t!e su%sisten#e of t!eir marriage. Juring trial' petitioner
testifed t!at "!ile Lots D' ^' M' and \' par#els of land' "ere registered in t!e name of respondent'
t!ese properties "ere a#)uired "it! t!e money !e re#ei$ed from t!e Jut#! go$ernment as !is
3= | P a g e
disa%ility %eneft sin#e respondent did not !a$e su;#ient in#ome. +e also #laimed t!at t!e -oint
a;da$it t!ey su%mitted "as #ontrary to Arti#le =9 of t!e Gamily Code' !en#e' in$alid. !e 8C ruled
t!at' regardless of t!e sour#e of funds for t!e a#)uisition of Lots D' ^' M and \' petitioner #ould not
!a$e a#)uired any rig!t "!atsoe$er o$er t!ese properties as petitioner still attempted to a#)uire t!em
not"it!standing !is ,no"ledge of t!e #onstitutional pro!i%ition against foreign o"ners!ip of pri$ate
lands. !is "as made e$ident %y t!e s"orn statements petitioner e5e#uted purporting to s!o" t!at t!e
su%-e#t par#els of land "ere pur#!ased from t!e e5#lusi$e funds of !is "ife' t!e !erein respondent.
Petitioner2s plea for reim%ursement for t!e amount !e !ad paid to pur#!ase
t!e foregoing properties on t!e %asis of e)uity "as li,e"ise denied for not !a$ing #ometo #ourt "it!
#lean !ands. CA a;rmed. Petitioner appealed.
6SSBED>: a foreigner may reim%urse !is in$estment in t!e pur#!ase of Gilipino land JEC6S6K: !e
Court AGG68.EJ t!e rulings of t!e 8C and CA. 6n
I" Re: Pet!t!o" For Separat!o" of Propert+-Ee"a B0e"a,e"t0ra M0er ,- .e20t M0er
t!e Court !ad already denied a##laim for reim%ursement of t!e $alue of pur#!ased par#els of
P!ilippine land instituted %y a foreigner against !is former Gilipina spouse. 6t !eld t!at t!e foreigner
#annot see, reim%ursement on t!e ground of e)uity "!ere it is #lear t!at !e "illingly and ,no"ingly
%oug!t t!e property despite t!e pro!i%ition against foreign o"ners!ip of P!ilippine land ens!rined
under Se#tion 9' Arti#le ^66 of t!e 19=9 P!ilippine Constitution. Bndenia%ly' petitioner openly admitted
t!at !e Lis "ell a"are of t!e a%o$e-#ited #onstitutional pro!i%itionL and e$en asse$erated t!at'
%e#ause of su#! pro!i%ition' !e and respondent registered t!e su%-e#t properties in t!e latter2s name.

Clearly' petitioner2s a#tuations s!o"ed !is palpa%le intent to s,irt t!e #onstitutional pro!i%ition. Kn t!e
%asis of su#! admission' t!e Court fnds no reason "!y it s!ould not apply t!e .uller ruling. !e time-
!onored prin#iple is t!at !e "!o !as done ine)uity s!all not %e a##orded e)uity. !us' litigant may %e
denied relief %y a #ourt of e)uity on t!e ground t!at !is #ondu#t !as-%een ine)uita%le' unfair and
dis!onest' or fraudulent' or de#eitful. Surely' a #ontra#t t!at $iolates t!e Constitution and t!e la" is
null and $oid' $ests no rig!ts' #reates no o%ligations and produ#es no legal e3e#t at all.
:eit!er #an t!e Court grant petitioners #laim for reim%ursement on t!e %asis of un-ust enri#!ment. 6t
does not apply if t!e a#tion is pros#ri%ed %y t!e Constitution.
77777777777777777777777777777
FAMILY RELATIONS/ FAMILY .OME
6a.alo vs CA
R !o. 1(&(4(, -a.uary 1', (##1
FACTS:
roadi# .analo "!o died on Ge%ruary 199&' "as sur$i$ed %y !is Pilar and !is 11 #!ildren. !e
de#eased left se$eral real properties in .anila and a %usiness in arla#. 6n :o$em%er 199&' !erein
respondents' = of t!e sur$i$ing #!ildren' fled a petition "it! 8C .anila for t!e -udi#ial settlement of
t!e estate of t!eir late fat!er and for appointment of t!eir %rot!er 8omeo .analo as administrator
t!ereof. +earing "as set on Ge%ruary 11' 1993 and t!e !erein petitioners "ere granted 11 days "it!in
"!i#! to fle t!eir opposition to t!e petition.
ISSUE: DK: t!e #ase at %ar is #o$ered under Arti#le 151 "!ere earnest e3orts to"ard #ompromise
s!ould frst %e made prior t!e fling of t!e petition.
.EL/:
6t is a fundamental rule t!at in t!e determination of t!e nature of an a#tion or pro#eeding' t!e
a$erments and t!e #!ara#ter of t!e relief "ere soug!t in t!e #omplaint or petition' s!all %e #ontrolling.
!e #areful s#rutiny of t!e petition for t!e issuan#e of letters of administration' settlement and
distri%ution of t!e estate %elies !erein petitioners2 #laim t!at t!e same is in t!e nature of an ordinary
#i$il a#tion. !e pro$ision of Arti#le 151 is appli#a%le only to ordinary #i$il a#tions. 6t is #lear from t!e
term HsuitI t!at it refers to an a#tion %y one person or persons against anot!er or ot!er in a #ourt of
-usti#e in "!i#! t!e plainti3 pursues t!e remedy "!i#! t!e la" a3ords !im for t!e redress of an in-ury
or enfor#ement of a rig!t. 6t is also t!e intention of t!e Code Commission as re$ealed in t!e 8eport of
t!e Code Commission to ma,e t!e pro$ision %e appli#a%le only to #i$il a#tions. !e petition for
issuan#e of letters of administration' settlement' and distri%ution of estate is a spe#ial pro#eeding and
as su#! a remedy "!ere%y t!e petitioners t!erein see, to esta%lis! a status' a rig!t' or a parti#ular
fa#t. +en#e' it must %e emp!asized t!at !erein petitioners are not %eing sued in su#! #ase for any
#ause of a#tion as in fa#t no defendant "as pronoun#ed t!erein.
77777777777777
GAYON JS- GAYON
FACTS:
!e re#ords s!o" t!at on 0uly 31' 19/9' Pedro *ayon fled
said#omplaint against t!e spouses Sil$estre *ayon and *eno$e$a de*ayon' alleging su%stantially t!at'
on K#to%er 1' 195&' said spousese5e#uted a deed E #opy of "!i#! "as atta#!ed to t!e #omplaint'
asAnne5 LAL E "!ere%y t!ey sold to Pedro *elera' for t!e sum of P511.11' a par#el of unregistered
39 | P a g e
land t!erein des#ri%ed' and lo#atedin t!e %arrio of Ca%u%ugan' muni#ipality of *uim%al' pro$in#e of
6loilo'in#luding t!e impro$ements t!ereon' su%-e#t to redemption "it!in
f$e@5A years or not later t!an K#to%er 1' 19594 t!at said rig!t of redemption !ad not %een e5er#ised %y
Sil$estre *ayon' *eno$e$a de*ayon' or any of t!eir !eirs or su##essors' despite t!e e5piration of
t!eperiod t!erefor4 t!at said Pedro *elera and !is "ife Estelita Jamaso!ad' %y $irtue of a deed of sale
E #opy of "!i#! "as atta#!ed to
t!e#omplaint' as Anne5 L?L E dated .ar#! &1' 19/1' sold t!eaforementioned land to plainti3 Pedro
*ayon for t!e sum of P/1(.114t!at plainti3 !ad' sin#e 19/1' introdu#ed t!ereon impro$ements
"ort!P1'1114 t!at !e !ad' moreo$er' fully paid t!e ta5es on said property upto 19/94 and t!at Arti#les
1/1/ and 1/1/ of our Ci$il Code re)uire
a -udi#ial de#ree for t!e #onsolidation of t!e title in and to a landa#)uired t!roug! a #onditional sale'
and' a##ordingly' praying t!at anorder %e issued in plainti3Cs fa$or for t!e #onsolidation of o"ners!ip
inand to t!e aforementioned property.6n !er ans"er to t!e
#omplaint' .rs. *ayon alleged t!at !er!us%and' Sil$estre *ayon' died on 0anuary /' 195(' long %efore
t!einstitution of t!is #ase4 t!at Anne5 LAL to t!e #omplaint is f#titious' fort!e signature t!ereon
purporting to %e !er signature is not !ers4
t!atneit!er s!e nor !er de#eased !us%and !ad e$er e5e#uted Lanydo#ument of "!ate$er nature in
plainti3Cs fa$orL4 t!at t!e #omplaint ismali#ious and !ad em%arrassed !er and !er #!ildren4 t!at t!e
!eirs of Sil$estre *ayon !ad to Lemploy t!e ser$i#es of #ounsel for a fee of P511.11 and in#urred
e5penses of at least P&11.11L4 and t!at %eing a%rot!er of t!e de#eased Sil$estre *ayon' plainti3 Ldid
not e5ert e3ortsfor t!e ami#a%le settlement of t!e #aseL %efore fling !is #omplaint.S!e prayed'
t!erefore' t!at t!e same %e dismissed and t!at plainti3 %esenten#ed to pay damages.
ISSUE :
D!et!er or not t!e #ontention of t!e .r.*ayon t!at anearnest e3ort to"ard a #ompromise %efore
t!e fling of t!e suit istena%le.
.EL/:
As regards' plainti32s failure to see, a #ompromise' as an alleged o%sta#le to t!e present #ase' Art. &&&
of our Ci$il
Code pro$ides< :o suit s!all %e fled or maintained %et"een mem%ers
of t!e same family unless it s!ould appear t!at earnest e3orts to"ard a #ompromise !a$e %een made'
%ut t!at t!e same !a$e failed' su%-e#t to t!e limitations in arti#le &135.6t is note"ort!y t!at t!e
impediment arising from t!is pro$ision applies to suits Lfled or maintained %et"een mem%ers of t!e
same family.L !is p!rase' Lmem%ers of t!e same family'L s!ould' !o"e$er' %e#onstrued in t!e lig!t of
Art. &19 of t!e same Code' pursuant to "!i#!< Gamily relations s!all in#lude t!ose<@1A ?et"een
!us%and and "ife4@&A ?et"een parent and #!ild4@3A Among ot!er as#endants and t!eir des#endants4@(A
Among %rot!ers and sisters..rs. *ayon is plainti3Cs sister-in-la"' "!ereas !er #!ildren are !isnep!e"s
and>or nie#es. 6n as mu#! as none of t!em is in#luded in t!e enumeration #ontained in said Art. &19 E
"!i#! s!ould %e #onstruedstri#tly' it %eing an e5#eption to t!e general rule E and Sil$estre*ayon must
ne#essarily %e e5#luded as party in t!e #ase at %ar' it follo"s t!at t!e same does not #ome "it!in t!e
pur$ie" of Art. &&&'and plainti3Cs failure to see, a #ompromise %efore fling t!e #omplaint does not %ar
t!e same. D+E8EGK8E' t!e order appealed from is !ere%y set aside and t!e
#aseremanded to t!e lo"er #ourt for t!e in#lusion' as defendant ordefendants t!erein' of t!e
administrator or e5e#utor of t!e estate of Sil$estre *ayon' if any' in lieu of t!e de#edent' or' in t!e
a%sen#e of su#! administrator or e5e#utor' of t!e !eirs of t!e de#eased Sil$estre *ayon' and for
furt!er pro#eedings' not in#onsistent "it! t!is de#ision' "it! t!e #osts of t!is instan#e against
defendant-appellee' *eno$e$ade *ayon. 6t is so ordered.
77777777777777777
Ma(%aeta , Go"o"(
April &&' 1999
8ufno .ag%aleta' !is "ife 8omana .ag%aleta' and anot!er person' Susan *. ?aldo$i' fled a petition
praying for a preliminary in-un#tion against t!e orders of respondent 0udge Arsenio *onong. !e
assailed orders denied petitionersQ motion to dismiss a #omplaint fled against t!em %y 8ufnoQs
%rot!er' Catalino .ag%aleta.
!e original #ase "as t!is< Catalino !ad fled a suit to !a$e a par#el of land' "!i#! "as in 8ufnoQs
name' %e de#lared in !is name instead. Catalino !ad also #laimed t!at Susana ?aldo$i' t!e t!ird
petitioner' "as trying to ta,e possession of said land from !is representati$e. Susana' on t!e ot!er
!and' !ad #laimed t!at s!e !ad %oug!t t!e land from spouses 8ufno and 8omana.
!e main #ontention is t!is< !at t!e assailed orders $iolated Arti#le &&& of t!e Ci$il Code' and Se#tion
1 8ule 1/ of t!e 8ules of Court' "!i#! pro$ide t!at' %efore suits "it!in t!e same family #an %e fled' an
earnest e3orts to"ards #ompromise !ad %een made. 6t is #ontended t!at Catalino !ad not alleged t!at
su#! earnest e3orts to"ards #ompromise !ad already %een made %efore !e fled !is #omplaint.
0udge *onong !ad refused t!e petitionersQ#omplaint to dismiss %e#ause one of t!e parties' Susana
?aldo$i' is a strangerEt!us' t!e aforementioned legal pro$isions did not apply to t!is #ase.
!e SC !eld t!at 0udge *unning2s ruling "as #orre#t. Wh!e !t !) "e'e))ar+ that e,er+ e#ort
to*ard) 'o2pro2!)e %e 2ade %efore !t!(at!o" e")0e) *!th!" a fa2!+$ th!) !) "ot a
prereF0!)!te for the 2a!"te"a"'e of a" a't!o" *he"e,er a )tra"(er to the fa2!+ !) a part+
there!"- 6t is neit!er pra#ti#al' nor fair' t!at t!e determination of t!e rig!ts of a stranger to t!e family
%e made to depend on t!e "ay !o" t!e family settles its di3eren#es.
Petition Jismissed.
7777777777777777
(1 | P a g e
Tr!%!a"a ,)- Tr!%!a"a
G-R- No- ;454?=
Fa't): t!is is a petition for !a%eas #orpus fled %y respondent Lourdes ri%iana against !er !us%and
petitioner Ed"in ri%iana. 6n !er petition' respondent #laims t!at petitioner left t!eir #on-ugal !ome
"it! t!eir daug!ter and !as sin#e depri$ed !er of la"ful #ustody.
Petioner mo$ed to dismiss t!e petition on t!e ground t!at t!e petition failed to allege t!at earnest
e3orts at a #ompromise "ere made %efore its fling as re)uired %y Arti#le 151 of t!e family #ode.
!e 8C denied ed"in2s motion' !en#e t!is petition.
I))0e: "!et!er or no t!e failure to indi#ate in !er petition fpr !a%eas #orpus t!at t!e parties e5erted
e3orts to rea#! a #ompromise is a ground for t!e dismissal of said petition.
.ed: alt!oug! respondent failed to allege t!at s!e resorted to #ompNromise pro#eedings %efore
fling t!e petition' atta#!ing a %arangay #ertif#ation to fle a#tion' nonet!elss e3e#ti$ely esta%lis!ed
t!at parties tried to #ompromise %ut "ere unsu##essful.
6n addition' t!e failure of a party to #omply "it! #ondition pre#edent is not -urisdi#tional defe#t.
.oreo$er' in !a%eas #orpus pro#eedings in$ol$ing t!e "elfare and #ustody of a #!ild of tender years'
t!e paramount #on#ern is to resol$e immediately t!e issue of "!o !as legal #ustody. e#!ni#alities
s!ould not stand in t!e "ay of gi$ing su#! #!ild full prote#tion.
7777777777777777777
+o.%iveros vs. R4C
R !o. 1(54'5, -u.e (&, 1&&&
FACTS:
Petitioner spouses Augusto and .aria +onti$eros fled a #omplaint for damages against pri$ate
respondents *regorio +onti$eros and eodora Ayson. !e petitioners alleged t!at t!ey are t!e o"ners
of a par#el of land in Capiz and t!at t!ey "ere depri$ed of in#ome from t!e land as a result of t!e fling
of t!e land registration #ase. 6n t!e reply' pri$ate respondents denied t!at t!ey "ere married and
alleged t!at *regorio "as a "ido"er "!ile eodora "as single. !ey also denied depri$ing petitioners
of possession of and in#ome from t!e land. Kn t!e #ontrary' a##ording to t!e pri$ate respondents' t!e
possession of t!e property in )uestion !ad already %een transferred to petitioners %y $irtue of t!e "rit
of possession. rial #ourt denied petitioner2s motion t!at "!ile in t!e amended #omplaint' t!ey alleged
t!at earnest e3orts to"ards a #ompromise "ere made' it "as not $erifed as pro$ided in Arti#le 151.
ISSUE: DK: t!e #ourt #an $alidly dismissed t!e #omplaint due to la#, of e3orts e5erted to"ards a
#ompromise as stated in Arti#le 151.
.EL/:
SC !eld t!at t!e in#lusion of pri$ate respondent eodora Ayson as defendant and .aria +onti$eros as
petitioner ta,es t!e #ase out of t!e s#ope of Arti#le 151. Bnder t!is pro$ision' t!e p!rase Hmem%ers of
t!e same familyI refers to t!e !us%and and "ife' parents and #!ildren' as#endants and des#endants'
and %rot!ers and sisters "!et!er full or !alf-%lood. 8eligious relations!ip and relations!ip %y a;nity
are not gi$en any legal e3e#ts in t!is -urisdi#tion. eodora and .aria as spouses of t!e +onti$eros2 are
regarded as strangers to t!e +onti$eros family for purposes of Arti#le 151.
77777777777777777
Tr!%!a"a ,)- Tr!%!a"a
G-R- No- ;454?=
Fa't): t!is is a petition for !a%eas #orpus fled %y respondent Lourdes ri%iana against !er !us%and
petitioner Ed"in ri%iana. 6n !er petition' respondent #laims t!at petitioner left t!eir #on-ugal !ome
"it! t!eir daug!ter and !as sin#e depri$ed !er of la"ful #ustody.
Petioner mo$ed to dismiss t!e petition on t!e ground t!at t!e petition failed to allege t!at earnest
e3orts at a #ompromise "ere made %efore its fling as re)uired %y Arti#le 151 of t!e family #ode.
!e 8C denied ed"in2s motion' !en#e t!is petition.
I))0e: "!et!er or not t!e failure to indi#ate in !er petition fpr !a%eas #orpus t!at t!e parties e5erted
e3orts to rea#! a #ompromise is a ground for t!e dismissal of said petition.
.ed: Alt!oug!' respondent failed to allege t!at s!e resorted to #ompromise pro#eedings %efore
fling t!e petition' atta#!ing a %arangay #ertif#ation to fle a#tion' nonet!eless e3e#ti$ely esta%lis!ed
t!at parties tried to #ompromise %ut "ere unsu##essful.
6n addition' t!e failure of a party to #omply "it! #ondition pre#edent is not -urisdi#tional defe#t.
.oreo$er' in !a%eas #orpus pro#eedings in$ol$ing t!e "elfare and #ustody of a #!ild of tender years'
t!e paramount #on#ern is to resol$e immediately t!e issue of "!o !as legal #ustody. e#!ni#alities
s!ould not stand in t!e "ay of gi$ing su#! #!ild full prote#tion.
7777777777777777777777
What happe") !f the per)o" 'o")t!t0t!"( the fa2!+ ho2e d!e)8
6f t!ere are %enef#iaries "!o sur$i$e and are li$ing in t!e family !ome' it "ill #ontinue for 11 years'
unless at t!e e5piration of 11 years' t!ere is still a minor %enef#iary' in "!i#! #ase t!e family !ome
(1 | P a g e
#ontinues until t!at %enef#iary %e#omes of age. /<atricio 's. Dario, >.$. o. 170829, o'e*ber 20,
200E2
!e family !ome s!all #ontinue for a period of ten @11A years or for as long as t!ere is a minor
%enef#iary. !e !eirs #annot partition t!e same unless t!e #ourt fnds #ompelling reasons t!erefor.
!is rule s!all apply regardless of "!oe$er o"ns t!e property or #onstituted t!e family !ome. @Art.
159' GCA
7777777777777
ALBINO EOSEF ,)- OTELIO SANTOS
Fa't):
6n Ci$il Case :o. 95-111-.W' Petitioner Al%ino 0osef "as t!e defendant' "!i#! is a #ase for
#olle#tion of sum of money fled %y !erein respondent Ktelio Santos' "!o #laimed t!at petitioner failed
to pay t!e s!oe materials "!i#! !e %oug!t on #redit from respondent on $arious dates in 199(. After
trial' t!e 8egional rial Court of .ari,ina City found petitioner lia%le to respondent. Petitioner appealed
to t!e Court of Appeals' "!i#! a;rmed t!e trial #ourt2s de#ision in oto. Petitioner fled %efore t!is
Court a petition for re$ie" on #ertiorari' %ut it "as dismissed in a 8esolution dated Ge%ruary 1=' &11&.
!e 0udgment %e#ame fnal and e5e#utory on .ay &1' &11&.
A "rit of e5e#ution "as issued on August &1' &113

and enfor#ed on August &1' &113. Kn
August &9' &113' #ertain personal properties su%-e#ts of t!e "rit of e5e#ution "ere au#tioned o3.
!ereafter' a real property lo#ated at .ari,ina City "as sold %y "ay of pu%li# au#tion to fully satisfy t!e
-udgment #redit.
Kn :o$em%er 5' &113' petitioner fled an original petition for #ertiorari "it! t!e Court of
Appeals' )uestioning t!e s!eri32s le$y and sale of t!e a%o$ementioned personal and real properties.
Petitioner #laimed t!at t!e personal properties did not %elong to !im %ut to !is #!ildren4 and t!at t!e
real property "as !is family !ome t!us e5empt from e5e#ution.
I))0e:
D!et!er or not t!e le$y and sale of t!e personal %elongings of t!e petitioner2s #!ildren as "ell
as t!e atta#!ment and sale on pu%li# au#tion of !is family !ome to satisfy t!e -udgment a"ard in fa$or
of respondent is legal.
R0!"(:
!e Supreme Court !eld t!at t!e family !ome is t!e d"elling pla#e of a person and !is family'
a sa#red sym%ol of family lo$e and repository of #!eris!ed memories t!at last during one2s lifetime. 6t
is t!e san#tuary of t!at union "!i#! t!e la" de#lares and prote#ts as a sa#red institution4 and li,e"ise
a s!elter for t!e fruits of t!at union. 6t is "!ere %ot! #an see, refuge and strengt!en t!e tie t!at %inds
t!em toget!er and "!i#! ultimately forms t!e moral fa%ri# of our nation. !e prote#tion of t!e family
!ome is -ust as ne#essary in t!e preser$ation of t!e family as a %asi# so#ial institution' and sin#e no
#ustom' pra#ti#e or agreement destru#ti$e of t!e family s!all %e re#ognized or gi$en e3e#t' t!e trial
#ourt2s failure to o%ser$e t!e proper pro#edures to determine t!e $era#ity of petitioner2s allegations' is
un-ustifed.
!e same is true "it! respe#t to personal properties le$ied upon and sold at au#tion. Jespite
petitioner2s allegations in !is Kpposition' t!e trial #ourt did not ma,e an e3ort to determine t!e nature
of t!e same' "!et!er t!e items "ere e5empt from e5e#ution or not' or "!et!er t!ey %elonged to
petitioner or to someone else.
77777777777777
6 #ant fnd Ca%ang $s ?asay
777777777777
6a.acop vs. CA
R !o. 1#4"75, !ovember 13, 1&&(
FACTS:
Glorante .ana#op and !is "ife Eua#eli pur#!ased on .ar#! 199&' a residential lot "it! a %ungalo"
lo#ated in Uuezon City. !e petitioner failed to pay t!e su%-#ontra#t #ost pursuant to a deed of
assignment signed %et"een petitioner2s #orporation and pri$ate respondent !erein @GG Cruz P CoA.
!e latter fled a #omplaint for t!e re#o$ery for t!e sum of money "it! a prayer for preliminary
atta#!ment against t!e former. Conse)uently' t!e #orresponding "rit for t!e pro$isional remedy "as
issued "!i#! triggered t!e atta#!ment of a par#el of land in Uuezon City o"ned %y t!e .ana#op
Constru#tion President' t!e petitioner. !e latter insists t!at t!e atta#!ed property is a family !ome
!a$ing %een o##upied %y !im and !is family sin#e 199& and is t!erefore e5empt from atta#!ment.
ISSUE: DK: t!e su%-e#t property is indeed e5empted from atta#!ment.
.EL/:
!e residential !ouse and lot of petitioner %e#ame a family !ome %y operation of la" under Arti#le 153
of t!e Gamily Code. Su#! pro$ision does not mean t!at said arti#le !as a retroa#ti$e e3e#t su#! t!at
all e5isting family residen#es' petitioner2s in#luded' are deemed to !a$e %een #onstituted as family
!omes at t!e time of t!eir o##upation prior to t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code and !en#efort!' are
(& | P a g e
e5empt from e5e#ution for t!e payment of o%ligations in#urred %efore t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily
Code on August 3' 19==. Sin#e petitioner in#urred de%t in 19=9' it pre#eded t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Code
and !is property is t!erefore not e5empt form atta#!ment.
!e petition "as dismissed %y SC.
7777777777777
G-R- No- G<4?? Ma+ 4;$ ;==>
EOSE MO/EIUILLO$ petitioner'
$s.
.ON- AUGUSTO J- BREJA FRANCISCO SALINAS$ FLORIPER ABELLAN-SALINAS$ EUANITO
CULAN-CULAN a"d /EPUTY S.ERIFF FERNAN/O PLATA respondents.
GANCAYCO$ -.0
FACTS:
As lia%ility for a $e!i#ular a##ident on .ar#! 1/' 199/ "!i#! ,illed Audie Salinas and "!i#! in-ured
8enato Culan' 0ose .ode)uillo and ?enito .alu%ay "ere ordered to pay indemnity for damages to
spouses Salinas and to 0uanito.
Conse)uently on 0uly 9' 19==' a "rit of e5e#ution and le$y "ere issued against a par#el of
residential lot and an agri#ultural land' t!e titles of "!i#! "ere under t!e name of .ode)uillo.
.ode)uillo t!en motioned to )uas!' ae(!"( that the re)!de"t!a ot *a) the!r fa2!+ ho2e
that had %ee" 'o")t!t0ted )!"'e ;=<=$ pr!or to the 'a)e a"d he"'e eDe2pt fro2
eDe'0t!o"$ for'ed )ae or atta'h2e"t under Arti#les 15& and 153 of t!e Gamily Code e5#ept for
lia%ilities mentioned in Arti#le 155 and t!at t!e -udgment de%t soug!t to %e enfor#ed against t!e
family !ome of defendant is not one of t!ose enumerated under Arti#le 155 of t!e Gamily Code.
!e trial #ourt denied t!e motion. A motion for re#onsideration t!ereof "as fled %y defendant and
t!is "as denied.
+en#e' t!e !erein petition for re$ie" on certiorari.
ISSUE: D!et!er or not a fnal -udgment of t!e Court of Appeals in an a#tion for damages may %e
satisfed %y "ay of e5e#ution of a family !ome #onstituted under t!e Gamily Code R NO
RULING:
!e lia%ility "!i#! "as t!e %asis of t!e -udgment "as in#urred in 199/ and t!e money -udgment "as
rendered on 0anuary &9' 19==. ?ot! pre#eded t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code on August 3' 19==.
!is #ase does not fall under t!e e5emptions from e5e#ution pro$ided in t!e Gamily Code.
Art. 155. !e family !ome s!all %e e5empt from e5e#ution' for#ed sale or atta#!ment e5#ept<
@1A Gor non-payment of ta5es4
@&A Gor de%ts in#urred prior to t!e #onstitution of t!e family !ome4
@3A Gor de%ts se#ured %y mortgages on t!e premises %efore or after su#! #onstitution4 P
@(A Gor de%ts due to la%orers' me#!ani#s' ar#!ite#ts' %uilders' material men and ot!ers "!o !a$e
rendered ser$i#e or furnis!ed material for t!e #onstru#tion of t!e %uilding.
The eDe2pt!o" pro,!ded !) e#e't!,e fro2 the t!2e of the 'o")t!t0t!o" of the fa2!+ ho2e a)
)0'h$ a"d a)t) )o o"( a) a"+ of !t) %e"e&'!ar!e) a't0a+ re)!de) there!"-
!e residential !ouse and lot of petitioner "as not #onstituted as a family !ome "!et!er -udi#ially or
e5tra-udi#ially under t!e Ci$il Code. It %e'a2e a fa2!+ ho2e %+ operat!o" of a* o"+ 0"der
Art!'e ;?4 of the Fa2!+ Code.
Bnder Arti#le 1/& of t!e Gamily Code' it is pro$ided t!at Lt!e pro$isions of t!is C!apter s!all also
go$ern e5isting family residen#es insofar as said pro$isions are appli#a%le.L It doe) "ot 2ea" that
Art!'e) ;?6 a"d ;?4 of )a!d Code ha,e a retroa't!,e e#e't )0'h that a eD!)t!"( fa2!+
re)!de"'e) are dee2ed to ha,e %ee" 'o")t!t0ted a) fa2!+ ho2e) at the t!2e of the!r
o''0pat!o" and are e5empt from e5e#ution for t!e payment of o%ligations in#urred %efore t!e
e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code. Art!'e ;<6 )!2p+ 2ea") that a eD!)t!"( fa2!+ re)!de"'e) at
the t!2e of the e#e't!,!t+ of the Fa2!+ Code$ are 'o")!dered fa2!+ ho2e) a"d are
pro)pe't!,e+ e"t!ted to the %e"e&t) a''orded to a fa2!+ ho2e 0"der the Fa2!+ Code.
77777777777
JILMA G- ARRIOLA a"d ANT.ONY RONAL/ G- ARRIOLA$ Pet!t!o"er)$ ,)- EO.N NABOR C-
ARRIOLA$ Re)po"de"t-
SG-R- No- ;555>4$ Ea"0ar+ 6G$ 6>>GT
Fa't):
Gidel Arriola died and is sur$i$ed %y !is legal !eirs< 0o!n :a%or Arriola @respondentA '!is son "it! !is
frst "ife ' and Filma *. Arriola' !is se#ond "ife and !is ot!er son' Ant!ony 8onald Arriola @petitionersA.
Kn Ge%. 1/' &11(' t!e 8C rendered a de#ision ordering t!e partition of t!e par#el of land #o$ered %y
C :o 3=391( @=(191A left %y t!e de#edent Gidel S. Arriola %y and among !is !eirs 0o!n :a%or C.
Arriola' Filma *. Arriola and Ant!ony 8onald *. Arriola in e)ual s!ares of one-t!ird @1>3A ea#! "it!out
pre-udi#e to t!e rig!ts of #reditors or mortgagees t!ereon' if any.
+o"e$er' t!e parties failed to agree on !o" to di$ide t!e a%o$e mentioned property and so t!e
respondent proposed to sell it t!oug! pu%li# au#tion. !e petitioners initially agreed %ut refused to
in#lude in t!e au#tion t!e !ouse standing on t!e su%-e#t land. !e respondent t!en fled an Fr,ent
Mani(estation and Motion (or 8onte*)t o( 8ourt %ut "as denied %y t!e 8C for la#, of merit.
D!en a motion of re#onsideration "as still denied %y t!e 8C' t!e respondent ele$ated t!e #ase to t!e
CA "it! a petition for #ertiorari and prayed t!at !e %e allo"ed to pus! t!roug! "it! t!e au#tion of t!e
su%-e#t land in#luding t!e !ouse %uilt on it. !e CA granted t!e petition and ordered t!e pu%li# au#tion
sale of t!e su%-e#t lot in#luding t!e !ouse %uilt on it. Petitioners fled a motion for re#onsideration %ut
t!e CA denied t!e said motion. +en#e t!is petition for re$ie" on Certiorari.
(3 | P a g e
6ssue< D!et!er or not t!e su%-e#t !ouse is #o$ered %y t!e -udgement of partition
8uling<
!e Supreme Court agree t!at t!e su%-e#t !ouse is #o$ered %y t!e -udgment of partition %ut in $ie" of
t!e suspended pros#ription imposed under Arti#le 159 of t!e family #ode' t!e su%-e#t !ouse
immediately partitioned to t!e !eirs.
Arti#le 15&. !e family !ome' #onstituted -ointly %y t!e !us%and and t!e "ife or %y an unmarried !ead
of a family' is t!e d"elling !ouse "!ere t!ey and t!eir family reside' and t!e land on "!i#! it is
situated.
Arti#le 153. !e family !ome is ,eeme, co.s%i%u%e, o. a ;ouse a., lo% from %;e %ime i% is
occupie, as a family resi,e.ce. Grom t!e time of its #onstitution and so long as any of its
%enef#iaries a#tually resides t!erein' t!e family !ome #ontinues to %e su#! and is e5empt from
e5e#ution' for#ed sale or atta#!ment e5#ept as !ereinafter pro$ided and to t!e e5tent of t!e $alue
allo"ed %y la". @Emp!asis supplied.A
!us' applying t!ese #on#epts' t!e su%-e#t !ouse as "ell as t!e spe#if# portion of t!e su%-e#t land on
"!i#! it stands are deemed #onstituted as a family !ome %y t!e de#eased and petitioner Filma from
t!e moment t!ey %egan o##upying t!e same as a family residen#e &1 years %a#,.
Arti#le 159. !e family !ome s!all #ontinue despite t!e deat! of one or %ot! spouses or of t!e
unmarried !ead of t!e family for a perio, of %e. years or for as long as t!ere is a minor %enef#iary'
and %;e ;eirs ca..o% par%i%io. %;e same u.less %;e cour% =.,s compelli./ reaso.s %;erefor.
4;is rule s;all apply re/ar,less of >;oever o>.s %;e proper%y or co.s%i%u%e, %;e family
;ome. @Emp!asis supplied.A
Arti#le 155 Gamily +ome
SPKBSES EJBA8JK and ELSA FE8SKLA $s CKB8 KG APPEALS
*.8. :o. 1/(9(1
0uly 31' &11/
G68S J6F6S6K:

Fa't):
!is #ase !as its genesis from a loan transa#tion entered into %y pri$ate respondent Jr. Fi#toria . Kng
K! and a #ertain Jolores Ledesma' "!erein t!e former granted a P1'111'111.11 loan to t!e latter. As a
se#urity for said loan' Ledesma issued to pri$ate respondent a #!e#, for t!e same amount dated 11
Ge%ruary 1993 and promised to e5e#ute a deed of real estate mortgage o$er !er !ouse and lot lo#ated
at andang Sora' Uuezon City' #o$ered %y ransfer Certif#ate of itle @CA :o. 8-511(&. !e
e5e#ution of t!e deed of real estate mortgage did not materialize' %ut Ledesma deli$ered t!e o"nerCs
dupli#ate #opy of t!e C :o. 8-511(& to pri$ate respondent. !ereafter' Ledesma sold t!e said !ouse
and lot to petitioners for P&'511'111.11. Petitioners paid LedesmaP1'111'111.11 as do"npayment'
"it! t!e remaining %alan#e of P1'511'111.11 to %e paid in mont!ly installments of P95'111.11&
starting 15 .ar#! 1993. 6n ,eeping "it! t!e foregoing agreement' pri$ate respondent granted
Ledesma an additional loan of P(51'111.11. D!en pri$ate respondent presented LedesmaCs #!e#, for
payment' t!e same "as dis!onored for t!e reason t!at t!e a##ount "as already #losed. Su%se)uently'
"!en pri$ate respondent presented for payment t!e #!e#, issued %y petitioners' t!e said #!e#, "as
li,e"ise dis!onored %e#ause t!ere "as a stop payment order. Dit! t!e dis!onor of t!e #!e#,s and "it!
AsiatrustCs refusal to release t!e P&'111'111.11 loan of petitioners' pri$ate respondent #ame a"ay
empty-!anded as s!e did not re#ei$e payment for t!e P1'511'111.11 loan s!e granted to Ledesma t!at
"as assumed %y petitioners. As a result' pri$ate respondent fled a Complaint for Sum of .oney
against Ledesma' petitioners' and Asiatrust %efore t!e 8C' ?ran#! &19' Uuezon City' do#,eted as Ci$il
Case :o. U-93-1/113.
Kn 3 April &111' pri$ate respondent fled a .otion for E5e#ution "it! t!e trial #ourt' t!e latter granted
t!e same in an Krder dated 1( April &111.


I))0e):
D!et!er or not petitioners timely raised and pro$ed t!at t!eir property is e5empt from e5e#ution.

.ed:
!e trial #ourt #riti#ized petitionerCs #laim t!at t!e su%-e#t property "as t!eir family !ome. !e #ourt
opined t!at t!e #laim "as ne$er su%stantiated %y petitioners aside from t!e fa#t t!at t!ey asserted
t!is defense only after t"o years sin#e t!e au#tion sale !as transpired. 6t added t!at if not for t!e
pri$ate respondentCs E5-parte .otion for 6ssuan#e of Confrmation of 0udi#ial Sale of 8eal Property of
Sps. Eduardo and Elsa Fersola fled on 5 August &11&' petitioners "ould not !a$e raised t!e issue of
family !ome %efore t!e said #ourt.
Arti#le 153 of t!e Gamily Code pro$ides<!e family !ome is deemed #onstituted on a !ouse and lot
from t!e time it is o##upied as t!e family residen#e. Grom t!e time of its #onstitution and so long as its
%enef#iaries resides t!erein' t!e family !ome #ontinues to %e su#! and is e5empt from e5e#ution'
for#ed sale or atta#!ment e5#ept as !ereinafter pro$ided and to t!e e5tent of t!e $alue allo"ed %y la".
Petition JE:6EJ. 0udgment of t!e Court of Appeals' for la#, of merit' AGG68.EJ. Costs against
petitioners.
77777777777777
Arti#le 155 Gamily +ome
SPKBSES AB+E8 *. WELLEM' 08. A:J JK86S A. WELLEM FS. PLA:E8S P8KJBCS' 6:C.
*.8. :o. 19&&/3
0uly 19' &11=
(( | P a g e
G68S J6F6S6K:

Fa't):
Petitioner Aut!er *. Welley' 0r. @Aut!erA a#)uired agri#ultural #!emi#al produ#ts on #onsignment from
respondent Planters Produ#ts' 6n#. @PP6A in 19=9. Jue to Aut!erCs failure to pay despite demand' PP6
fled an a#tion for sum of money against !im in t!e 8egional rial Court of .a,ati City' ?ran#! 59 @8C
.a,ati CityA.

After trial on t!e merits' t!e 8C .a,ati City de#ided in fa$or of PP6 and issued a "rit of e5e#ution.
Pursuant t!ereto' respondent s!eri3 0orge A. 8agutana sold on e5e#ution real property #o$ered %y C
:o. 15199 lo#ated in :aga City. A #ertif#ate of sale "as issued in fa$or of PP6 as t!e !ig!est %idder.

After %eing %elatedly informed of t!e said sale' petitioners Aut!er and !is "ife Joris A. Welley @JorisA
fled a motion to dissol$e or set aside t!e noti#e of le$y in t!e 8C .a,ati City on t!e ground t!at t!e
su%-e#t property "as t!eir family !ome "!i#! "as e5empt from e5e#ution. PetitionersC motion "as
denied for failure to #omply "it! t!e t!ree-day noti#e re)uirement.

Su%se)uently' petitioners fled a #omplaint for de#laration of nullity of le$y and sale of t!e alleged
family !ome "it! damages against 8agutana and PP6 in t!e 8egional rial Court of :aga City' ?ran#!
19 @8C :aga CityA. !is "as do#,eted as Ci$il Case :o. &111-11==. !e #ase "as' !o"e$er' dismissed
for la#, of -urisdi#tion and la#, of #ause of a#tion. !e dismissal "as up!eld %y t!e CA.

I))0e):

D!et!er or not CA erred in up!olding t!e dismissal of Ci$il Case :o. &111-11== %y t!e 8C :aga City
D!et!er or not t!e property #o$ered is a duly #onstituted family !ome and t!erefore e5empt from
e5e#ution.

.ed:
:o dou%t' a family !ome is generally e5empt from e5e#ution pro$ided it "as duly #onstituted as su#!.
!ere must %e proof t!at t!e alleged family !ome "as #onstituted -ointly %y t!e !us%and and "ife or
%y an unmarried !ead of a family. 6t must %e t!e !ouse "!ere t!ey and t!eir family a#tually reside and
t!e lot on "!i#! it is situated. !e family !ome must %e part of t!e properties of t!e a%solute
#ommunity or t!e #on-ugal partners!ip' or of t!e e5#lusi$e properties of eit!er spouse "it! t!e latterCs
#onsent' or on t!e property of t!e unmarried !ead of t!e family.

Bnder t!e Gamily Code' t!ere is no need to #onstitute t!e family !ome -udi#ially or e5tra-udi#ially. All
family !omes #onstru#ted after t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code @August 3' 19==A are #onstituted as
su#! %y operation of la". All e5isting family residen#es as of August 3' 19== are #onsidered family
!omes and are prospe#ti$ely entitled to t!e %enefts a##orded to a family !ome under t!e Gamily Code.

!e rule' !o"e$er' is not a%solute. !e Gamily Code' in fa#t' e5pressly pro$ides for t!e follo"ing
e5#eptions<
Arti#le 155. !e family !ome s!all %e e5empt from e5e#ution' for#ed sale or atta#!ment e5#ept<
@1A Gor non-payment of ta5es4
@&A Gor de%ts in#urred prior to t!e #onstitution of t!e family !ome4
@3A Gor de%ts se#ured %y a mortgage on t!e premises %efore or after su#! #onstitution4
and
@(A Gor de%ts due to la%orers' me#!ani#s' ar#!ite#ts' %uilders' material men and ot!ers
"!o !a$e rendered ser$i#e or furnis!ed material for t!e #onstru#tion of t!e %uilding.
Ci$il Case :o. &111-11== 8E6:SAEJ and t!is #ase is !ere%y 8E.A:JEJ to t!e 8egional rial Court of
:aga City.
777777777777
EUANITA TRINI/A/ RAMOS $s. /ANILO PANGILINAN
G-R- No- ;G?=6> E0+ 6>$ 6>;>
Fa't):
8espondents fled a #omplaint for illegal dismissal against E... 8amos Ele#tri#' 6n#.' a #ompany
o"ned %y Ernesto .. 8amos' t!e patriar#! of !erein petitioners. !e la%or ar%iter ordered 8amos and
t!e #ompany to pay t!e respondents2 %a#,-"ages' separation pay' 13t! mont! pay P ser$i#e in#enti$e
lea$e pay. !e de#ision %e#ame fnal and e5e#utory so a "rit of e5e#ution "as issued "!i#! t!e Jeputy
S!eri3 of t!e :ational La%or 8elations Commission @:L8CA implemented %y le$ying a property in
8amos2 name situated in Panda#an.

Alleging t!at t!e Panda#an property "as t!e family !ome' !en#e' e5empt from e5e#ution to
satisfy t!e -udgment a"ard' 8amos and t!e #ompany mo$ed to )uas! t!e "rit of e5e#ution.
8espondents argued t!at it is not t!e family !ome t!ere %eing anot!er one in Antipolo and t!at t!e
Panda#an address is a#tually t!e %usiness address. !e motion "as denied and t!e appeal "as
li,e"ise denied %y t!e :L8C.
I))0e:
D!et!er or not t!e le$y upon t!e Panda#an property "as $alid.
(5 | P a g e
R0!"(:
Mes. Gor t!e family !ome to %e e5empt from e5e#ution' distin#tion must %e made as to "!at
la" applies %ased on "!en it "as #onstituted and "!at re)uirements must %e #omplied "it! %y t!e
-udgment de%tor or !is su##essors #laiming su#! pri$ilege. +en#e' t"o sets of rules are appli#a%le. 6f
t!e family !ome "as #onstru#ted %efore t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code or %efore August 3' 19=='
t!en it must !a$e %een #onstituted eit!er -udi#ially or e5tra--udi#ially as pro$ided under Arti#les &&5'
&&9-&31 and &33 of t!e Ci$il Code. .ean"!ile' Arti#les &(1 to &(& go$erns e5tra-udi#ial #onstitution.
Kn t!e ot!er !and' for family !omes #onstru#ted after t!e e3e#ti$ity of t!e Gamily Code on
August 3' 19==' t!ere is no need to #onstitute e5tra -udi#ially or -udi#ially' and t!e e5emption is
e3e#ti$e from t!e time it "as #onstituted and lasts as long as any of its %enef#iaries under Art. 15(
a#tually reside t!erein. .oreo$er' t!e family !ome s!ould %elong to t!e a%solute #ommunity or
#on-ugal partners!ip' or if e5#lusi$ely %y one spouse' its #onstitution must !a$e %een "it! #onsent of
t!e ot!er' and its $alue must not e5#eed #ertain amounts depending upon t!e area "!ere it is lo#ated.
Gurt!er' t!e de%ts in#urred for "!i#! t!e e5emption does not apply as pro$ided under Art. 155 for
"!i#! t!e family !ome is made ans"era%le must !a$e %een in#urred after August 3' 19==. 6n %ot!
instan#es' t!e #laim for e5emption must %e pro$ed.
6n t!e present #ase' sin#e petitioners #laim t!at t!e family !ome "as #onstituted prior to
August 3' 19==' or as early as 19((' t!ey must #omply "it! t!e pro#edure mandated %y t!e Ci$il Code.
!ere %eing a%solutely no proof t!at t!e Panda#an property "as -udi#ially or e5tra -udi#ially #onstituted
as t!e 8amos2 family !ome' t!e la" prote#ting t!e family !ome #annot apply t!ere%y ma,ing t!e le$y
upon t!e Panda#an property $alid.
77777777777
SPOUSES ARACELI OLIJA-/E MESA$ et a- ,- SPOUSES CLAU/IO /- ACERO$ ER-$ et a- G-R- No-
;G?><H$ ;< Ea"0ar+ 6>;6$ SECON/ /IJISION :Re+e)$ E-@
6t is in#um%ent upon t!e de%tor to in$o,e and pro$e t!at t!e su%-e#t property is !is family !ome "it!in
t!e pres#ri%ed period' ot!er"ise la#!es "ill set in.
FACTS:
Claudio J. A#ero 0r.' %eing t!e !ig!est %idder' a#)uired t!e o"ners!ip of a par#el of land formerly
o"ned %y petitioners Ara#eli Kli$a-Je .esa and Ernesto S. Je .esa @Spouses Je .esaA. !e property
"as sold at a pu%li# au#tion after Spouses Je .esa failed to pay t!e loan t!ey se#ured from A#ero.
!ereafter' respondents A#ero and !is "ife 8ufna @Spouses A#eroA leased t!e su%-e#t property to its
former o"ners "!o t!en defaulted in t!e payment of t!e rent. Bna%le to #olle#t t!e rentals due'
Spouses A#ero fled a #omplaint for e-e#tment "it! t!e .uni#ipal rial Court @.CA against Spouses Je
.esa. !e .C ruled in Spouses A#ero2s fa$or.
6n t!eir defense' Spouses Je .esa fled a #omplaint "it! t!e 8egional rial Court @8CA' see,ing to
nullify C :o. -&&1955 @.A on t!e %asis t!at t!e su%-e#t property is a family !ome "!i#! is e5empt
from e5e#ution under t!e Gamily Code' and t!us' #ould !a$e not %een $alidly le$ied upon for purposes
of satisfying t!eir unpaid loan. +o"e$er' t!e 8C dismissed t!eir #omplaint. !e Court of Appeals @CAA
a;rmed t!e 8C2s Je#ision.
ISSUE:
D!et!er or not t!e family !ome is e5empted from e5e#ution
.EL/:
Petition JE:6EJ.
6ndeed' t!e family !ome is a sa#red sym%ol of family lo$e and is t!e repository of #!eris!ed memories
t!at last during one2s lifetime. 6t is li,e"ise "it!out dispute t!at t!e family !ome' from t!e time of its
#onstitution and so long as any of its %enef#iaries a#tually resides t!erein' is generally e5empt from
e5e#ution' for#ed sale or atta#!ment.
!e family !ome is a real rig!t' "!i#! is gratuitous' inaliena%le and free from atta#!ment. 6t #annot %e
seized %y #reditors e5#ept in #ertain spe#ial #ases. +o"e$er' t!is rig!t #an %e "ai$ed or %e %arred %y
la#!es %y t!e failure to set up and pro$e t!e status of t!e property as a family !ome at t!e time of t!e
le$y or a reasona%le time t!ereafter.
Gor all intents and purposes' t!e negligen#e of Petitioners Je .esa or t!eir omission to assert t!eir
rig!t "it!in a reasona%le time gi$es rise to t!e presumption t!at t!ey !a$e a%andoned' "ai$ed or
de#lined to assert it. Sin#e t!e e5emption under Arti#le 153 of t!e Gamily Code is a personal rig!t' it is
in#um%ent upon t!e Je .esa to in$o,e and pro$e t!e same "it!in t!e pres#ri%ed period and it is not
t!e s!eri32s duty to presume or raise t!e status of t!e su%-e#t property as a family !ome.
7777777777777
SPOUSES C.ARLIE FORTALEQA a"d OFELIA FORTALEQA ,)- SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN a"d
RONA LAPITAN A0(0)t ;?$ 6>;6
Fa't):
Spouses C!arlie and Kfelia Gortaleza o%tained a loan from spouses 8olando and Amparo
Lapitan @#reditorsA. As se#urity' spouses Gortaleza e5e#uted on 0anuary &=' 199= a Jeed of 8eal Estate
.ortgage o$er t!eir residential !ouse and lot situated in ?arrio Anos' .uni#ipality of Los ?a_os'
Laguna @su%-e#t propertyA. D!en spouses Gortaleza failed to pay t!e inde%tedness in#luding t!e
interests and penalties' t!e #reditors applied for e5tra-udi#ial fore#losure of t!e 8eal Estate .ortgage
%efore t!e K;#e of t!e Cler, of Court and E5-K;#io S!eri3 of Calam%a City. !e pu%li# au#tion sale
"as set on .ay 9' &111.
(/ | P a g e
At t!e sale' t!e #reditors2 son Jr. 8aul Lapitan and !is "ife 8ona emerged as t!e !ig!est
%idders. !en' t!ey "ere issued a Certif#ate of Sale

t!at "as registered "it! t!e 8egistry of Jeeds of
Calam%a City. !e one-year redemption period e5pired "it!out t!e spouses Gortaleza redeeming t!e
mortgage. !us' spouses Lapitan e5e#uted an a;da$it of #onsolidation of o"ners!ip on :o$em%er &1'
&113 and t!e registration of t!e su%-e#t property in t!eir names on Ge%ruary (' &11(. Jespite t!e
foregoing' t!e spouses Gortaleza refused spouses Lapitan2s formal demand

to $a#ate and surrender
possession of t!e su%-e#t property.
I))0e:
D!et!er or not t!e +onora%le #ourt of appeals gra$ely erred in not !olding t!at t!e petitioners
"ere pre$ented %y t!e respondent from e5er#ising t!eir rig!t of redemption o$er t!e fore#losed
property %y demanding a redemption o$er t!e fore#losed property %y demanding a redemption pri#e
of a !ig!ly e)uita%le and more t!an dou%le t!e amount of t!e fore#losed property' espe#ially t!at t!e
fore#losed mortgaged property is t!e family !ome of petitioners and t!eir #!ildren.
R0!"(:
!e Supreme Court !eld t!at Arti#le 155@3A of t!e Gamily Code e5pli#itly allo"s t!e for#ed sale
of a family !ome Lfor de%ts se#ured %y mortgages on t!e premises %efore or after su#! #onstitution.L
6n t!is #ase' t!ere is no dou%t t!at spouses Gortaleza $oluntarily e5e#uted on 0anuary &=' 199= a deed
of 8eal Estate .ortgage o$er t!e su%-e#t property' "!i#! "as e$en notarized %y t!eir original #ounsel
of re#ord. And assuming t!at t!e property is e5empt from for#ed sale' spouses Gortaleza did not set up
and pro$e to t!e S!eri3 su#! e5emption from for#ed sale %efore it "as sold at t!e pu%li# au#tion.