BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art.

148, FC

Civil Code 1 Persons and Family Relation Case Digest

GUILLERMA TUMLOS vs. SPOUSES MARIO FERNANDEZ and LOURDES FERNANDEZ JOSEFINA C. FRANCISCO vs. MASTER IRON WORKS MILAGROS JOAQUINO a.k.a. MILAGROS J. REYES vs. LOURDES REYES, MERCEDES, MANUEL, MIRIAM and RODOLFO JR. JACINTO SAGUID vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS VICTOR JUANIZA vs. EUGENIO JOSE

BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art. 148, FC GUILLERMA TUMLOS vs. SPOUSES MARIO FERNANDEZ and LOURDES FERNANDEZ G.R. No. 137650 April 12, 2000 Facts: On July 5, 1996, the said spouses alleged that they are the absolute owners of an apartment building located at ARTE SUBDIVISION III, Lawang Bato, Valenzuela, Metro Manila; that through tolerance they had allowed Guillerma, petitioner, Toto and Gina Tumlos to occupy the apartment building for the last seven (7) years, since 1989, without the payment of any rent; that it was agreed upon that after a few months, defendant Guillerma Tumlos will pay P1,600.00 a month while the other promised to pay P1,000.00 a month, both as rental, which agreement was not complied with by the said defendants. She averred therein that the Fernandez spouses had no cause of action against her, since she is a co-owner of the subject premises as evidenced by a Contract to Sell wherein it was stated that she is a co-vendee of the property in question together with Mario Fernandez. Mario Fernandez and Guillerma had an amorous relationship, and that they acquired the property in question as their love nest. It was further alleged that they lived together in the said apartment building with their two (2) children for around ten (10) years, and that Guillerma administered the property by collecting rentals from the lessees of the other apartments, until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the annulment of his marriage. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Guillerma Tumlos is the co-owner of the property by virtue of cohabiting with Mario Fernandez who is legally married to Lourdez Fernandez. Ruling: In the present case Article 148 of the family Code shall apply. Article 148 states that In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit. If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. Guillerma Tumlos fail to present an evidence of her actual contribution to the purchase of the property. In Article 148 did not include also administration of the property as contribution, it is unsubstantiated.

BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art. 148, FC JOSEFINA C. FRANCISCO vs. MASTER IRON WORKS G.R. No. 151967 February 16, 2005 Facts: On January 15, 1983, Eduardo and Josefina Francisco got married. On August 31, 1984, Josefina purchased two parcels of lands. The Registry of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of title in the name of Josefina Castillo Francisco married to Eduardo G. Francisco. On January 13, 1986, Josefina mortgaged the said property to Leonila Cando. It appears that Eduardo affixed his marital conformity to the deed. On June 11, 1990, Eduardo bought 7,500 bags of cement from Master Iron Works and Construction Corporation (MIWCC) but failed to pay the same. The court issued writ of execution levying the two parcel of land as for payment to MIWCC. On July 3, 1994, Josefina executed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim over the two parcel of land in which she claimed that they were her paraphernal property, and that her husband had no proprietary right or interest over them as evidenced by his affidavit of waiver, a copy of which she attached to her affidavit. Before she could commence presenting her evidence against MIWCC, Josefina filed a petition to annul her marriage to Eduardo in the RTC of Paraaque, on the ground that when they were married on January 15, 1983, Eduardo was already married to one Carmelita Carpio. On September 9, 1996, the RTC of Paraaque rendered judgment, declaring the marriage between Josefina and Eduardo as null and void for being bigamous. Issue: Whether or not the subject properties were paraphernal property of Josefina and cannot be held liable for the Eduardos personal obligations. Ruling: No. The subject properties are not the paraphernal property of Josefina and can be held to answer the liabilities of Eduardo. Even though Eduardo and Josefinas marriage is bigamous, the properties cannot be held conjugal, Josefina failed to adduce preponderance of evidence that she contributed money, property or industry in the acquisition of the subject property and hence, is not a co-owner of such. Also, the Court doubted that when she acquired the property at 23 years of age, she had enough funds to pay for it. Her claim that the funds for the property were provided by her mother and sister, the Court believed, was just an afterthought.

BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art. 148, FC MILAGROS JOAQUINO a.k.a. MILAGROS J. REYES vs. LOURDES REYES, MERCEDES, MANUEL, MIRIAM and RODOLFO JR. G.R. No. 154645 July 13, 2004 Facts: In the marriage between Lourdes Reyes and the deceased husband Rodolfo Reyes, Rodolfo has an illicit relationship with Milagros Joaquino. The deceased allegedly "put into custody" some of the couple's conjugal properties to Milagros. On July 12,1979, there is a transfer of property in favor of the petitioner and for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 90293 of the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, District IV was issued in the name of petitioner Milagros B. Joaquino. The complainant alleges that that the funds used to purchase the property were conjugal funds and earnings of the deceased. The complaint finally alleges that the deceased had two cars in petitioners possession and that the real and personal properties in petitioners possession are conjugal partnership properties of the spouses Lourdes P. Reyes and Rodolfo A. Reyes and one-half belongs exclusively to respondent Lourdes P. Reyes and the other half to the estate of Rodolfo A. Reyes to be apportioned among the other respondents as his forced heirs. Respondents therefore, pray that the property covered by T.C.T. No. 90293 be declared conjugal property of the spouses Lourdes P. Reyes and Rodolfo A. Reyes and that petitioner be ordered to reconvey the property in respondents favor; that the two cars in petitioners possession be delivered to respondents and that petitioner be made to pay actual, compensatory and moral damages to respondents as well as attorneys fees. Issue: Whether or not the common law relationship between Milagros Joaquino and the deceases validates her claim of ownership. Ruling: No. Under Article 145 of the Civil Code, a conjugal partnership of gains (CPG) is created upon marriage and lasts until the legal union is dissolved by death, annulment, legal separation or judicial separation of property. Conjugal properties are by law owned in common by the husband and wife. As to what constitutes such properties are laid out in Article 153 of the Code, which we quote: "(1) That which is acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses; (2) That which is obtained by the industry, or work, or as salary of the spouses, or of either of them; (3) The fruits, rents or interests received or due during the marriage, coming from the common property or from the exclusive property of each spouse." Moreover, under Article 160 of the Code, all properties of the marriage, unless proven to pertain to the husband or the wife exclusively, are presumed to belong to the CPG. For the rebuttable presumption to arise, however, the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during the existence of the marriage. In default of Article 144 of the Civil Code, Article 148 of the Family Code has been applied. Thus, when a common-law couple has a legal impediment to marriage, only the property acquired by them -- through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry -- shall be owned by them in common and in proportion to their respective contributions. Milagros likewise failed to

BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art. 148, FC prove that she was indeed financially capable of purchasing the house and lot, that she actually contributed to the payments, and that she was employed anytime after 1961 when the property was purchased. The Certification and Affidavits stating that she borrowed money from her siblings and had earnings from a jewelry business were also deemed to have no probative values, they were not cross-examined by the respondents.

BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art. 148, FC JACINTO SAGUID vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 150611 Facts: June 10, 2003

Gina S. Rey, private respondent and seventeen years old, was married but separated de facto from her husband. Sometime in July 1987, she met Jacinto, petitioner, after a brief courtship they decided to cohabit as husband and wife. In 1996, the couple decided to end up their nine-year cohabitation. On January 9, 1997, respondent filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with Receivership against the petitioner in the RTC. She prayed that she be declared the sole owner of the personal properties she contributed during her cohabitation with Jacinto and the amount of 70,000.00 representing her contribution to the construction of their house be reimbursed to her. Issue: Whether or not Gina Rey is entitled to the ownership of the personal properties and reimbursement of her contributions to the construction of their house. Ruling: Yes, Gina is entitled to the ownership of the personal properties and reimbursement of her contributions to the construction of their house. It is not disputed that Gina and Jacinto were not capacitated to marry each other because the former was validly married to another man at the time of her cohabitation with the latter. Their property regime therefore is governed by Article 148 of the Family Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons, and multiple alliances of the same married man. Under this regime, "only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions..." Proof of actual contribution is required. The fact that the controverted property was titled in the name of the parties to an adulterous relationship is not sufficient proof of co-ownership absent evidence of actual contribution in the acquisition of the property. While there is no question that both parties contributed in their joint account deposit, there is, however, no sufficient proof of the exact amount of their respective shares therein. Pursuant to Article 148 of the Family Code, in the absence of proof of extent of the parties respective contribution, their share shall be presumed to be equal.

BIGAMOUS, ADULTEROUS, etc. RELATIONSHIPS, Art. 148, FC VICTOR JUANIZA vs. EUGENIO JOSE G.R. No. L-50127-28 Facts: March 3, 1979

In November 23, 1967, the defendant Jose, registered owner and operator of a passenger jeepney, involved in an accident of collision with a freight train of the Philippine National Railways which resulted in the death to seven (7) and physical injuries to five (5) of its passengers. At that time the defendant is legally married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with Rosalia Arroyo for sixteen years. The court charged the defendant and Rosalia Arroyo for damages. Motion for reconsideration was filed by Rosalia Arroyo praying that the decision be reconsidered insofar as it condemns her to pay damages jointly and severally with her co-defendant, but was denied. The lower court based her liability on the provision of Article 144 of the Civil Code. Issue: Whether or not Article 144 of the Civil Code is applicable in a case where one of the parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to marry. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. Under the provision of the Civil Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney. The jeepney belongs to the conjugal partnership of Jose and his legal wife. There is therefore no basis for the liability of Arroyo for damages arising from the death of, and physical injuries suffered by, the passengers of the jeepney, which figured in the collision.