Bar Q and A #11

a) 1) The first marriage settlement was valid because it was in writing, signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of themarriage
2) The subsequent agreement of the parties was void as a modification of their marriage settlement. To be valid, the modification must be executed before the celebration of the marriage. The subsequent agreement of the parties did not effect a dissolution of their conjugal partnership and a separation of their properties because it was not approved by the court. To be valid, an agreement by the parties to dissolve their conjugal partnership and to separate their properties during the marriage has to be approved by the court.

b) Since the marriage settlement was binding between the parties, conjugal partnership of gains was the regime of their property relations. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, all properties acquired by the spouses during the marriage, jointly or by either one of them, through their work or industry are conjugal. Therefore, the residential house and lot, and the condominium unit are conjugal having been jointly acquired by the couple during the marriage. Inasmuch as the subsequent agreement on dissolution of the conjugal partnership and separation of property was invalid, conjugal partnership subsisted between the parties. Therefore, the mansion and the agricultural land are also conjugal having been acquired by one of the spouses during the marriage.

c) The marriage settlement cannot prejudice third parties, such as the creditors, because it was not registered with the local civil registrar where the marriage was recorded. To bind third parties, the Family Code requires registration of the marriage settlement not only with the proper registers of deeds but also with the local civil registrar where the marriage was recorded. Hence, if the rules on conjugal partnership will prejudice the creditors, the rules on absolute community will be applied instead. However, insofar as debts contracted by one spouse without the consent of the other are concerned, the rule is the same for both conjugal partnership and absolute community. The partnership or community is liable for debts contracted by one spouse but only to the extent that it benefited the family. Therefore, if the debts contracted by Mila redounded to the benefit of the family, all the conjugal partnership properties are liable to pay them but only to the extent the family was benefited. The separate properties of Mila may be held answerable for Mila’s debts and obligations that did not redound to the benefit of the family.

a) Yes, it is valid as to form because it is in writing. However, it cannot be registered in the registry of property because it is not a public document. To make it registrable, it must be reformed and has to be notarized.

b) Stipulations 1 and 3 are valid because they are not contrary to law. Stipulation 4 is void because it is contrary to law. Stipulation 2 is valid up to 1/5 of their respective present properties by void as to the excess. (Art. 84, Family Code)

c) No, on September 15, 1991, the marriage settlement is not yet valid and enforceable until the celebration of the marriage, to take place before the last day of the 1991 Bar Examinations.

Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art. 130 of the Civil Code, contractual succession is no longer possible since the law now requires that donations of future property be governed by the provisions on the testamentary succession and formalities of wills.

1) a) Yes. The Family Code provides that all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the community property unless the contrary is proved.

b) Yes. The shares are presumed to be absolute community property having been acquired during the marriage despite the fact that those shares were registered only in her name. Alberto’s right to claim his share will only arise, however, at dissolution.

c) The presumption is still that the shares of stock are owned in common. Hence, they will form part of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership depending on what the property regime is.

d) Since Paulita acquired the shares of stock by onerous title during the marriage, these are part of the conjugal or absolute community property, as the case may be, or after the effectivity of the Family Code. Her physical separation from her husband did not dissolve the community of property. Hence, the husband has a right to share in the shares of stock.

2) a) Under a community of property,whether absolute or relative, the disposition of property belonging to such community is void if done by just one spouse without the consent of the other or authority of the proper court. However, the land was registered in the name of Paulita as “widow.” Hence, the buyer has the right to rely upon what appears in the record of the Register of Deeds and should, consequently, be protected. Alberto cannot recover the land from Rafael but would have the right of recourse against his wife.

b) The parcel of land is absolute community property having been acquired during the marriage and through Paulita’s industry despite the registration being only in the name of Paulita. The land being community property, its sale to Rafael without the consent of Alberto is void. However, since the land is registered in the name of Paulita as widow, there is nothing in the title which would raise a suspicion for Rafael to make inquiry. He, therefore, is an innocent purchaser for value from whom the land may no longer be recovered.

c) The parcel of land is absolute community property having been acquired during the marriage and through Paulita’s industry despite registration only in the name of Paulita. The land being community property, its sale to Rafael without the consent of Alberto is void.

a) Art. 147 of the Family Code provides in part that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules of co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. A party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the familyand of thehousehold.

Thus:
1. The wages and salaries of Luis in the amount of P200,000.00 shall be divided equally between Luis and Rizza.
2. The house and lot valued at P500,000.00 having been acquired by both of them through work or industry shall be divided between them in proportion to their respective contribution in consonance with the rules on co-ownership. Hence, Luis gets 2/5 while Rizza gets 3/5 of P500,000.00.
3. The car worth P100,000.00 shall be exclusively owned by Rizza, the same having been donated to her by her parents.

b) The property relations between Luis and Rizza, their marriage having been celebrated 20 years ago (under the Civil Code) shall be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains, under which the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts of by chance, and upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouse shall be divided equally between them. (Art. 142, CivilCode)

Thus:

1. The salary of Luis deposited in the bank in the amount of P200,000.00 and the house and lot valued at P500,000.00 shall be divided equally between Luis and Rizza.
2. However, the car worth P100,000.00 donated to Rizza by her parents shall be considered to her own paraphernal property, having been acquired by lucrative title. (par. 2, Art. 148, Civil Code)

  1. Since Bob and Sofia got married in 1970, then the law that governs is the New Civil Code, in which case, the property relations that should be applied as regards the property of the spouses is the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of (Art. 119) By conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and the wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work or industry. (Art. 142) In this instance, the lot inherited by Bob in 1975 is his own separate property, he having acquired the same by lucrative title. (Art. 148,par. 2) However, the house constructed from his own savings in 1981 during the subsistence  of  his marriage with Issa is conjugal property and not exclusive property in accordance with the principle of "reverse accession" provided for in Art. 158 of the Civil Code.

  2. Yes, the answer would still be the Since Bob and Issa contracted their marriage way back in 1970, then the property relations that will govern is still the relative community or conjugal partnership of gains. (Art.119) It will not matter if Bob died before or after August 3, 1988 (effectivity date of the Family Code), what matters is the date when the marriage was contracted. As Bob and Issa contracted their marriage way back in 1970, the property relation that governs them is still the conjugal partnership of gains. (Art. 158)

a) Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot as co-owners in equal shares. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife, the property acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. This is true even though the efforts of one of them consisted merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

b) Yes, it would make a difference. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not marry each other because of an impediment, only those properties acquired by both of them through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the family and household are not considered adequate contribution in the acquisition of the properties. Since Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no share therein. If Tony cohabited with Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot is his exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan before his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot belongs to his community or partnership with Alice.