he Family on Code spawned a lot of were new provisions family relations, which not previously found in the Civil

Code of 1950. One of which is the provision for the delivery of the presumptive legitimes (or "pamana" in the vernacular) to the children of annulled marriages. Article 50 provides that "the final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings." What exactly is the meaning of legitime? The Civil Code (Art.886) defines it as "that part of the testator's (the one making a will) property which he cannot dispose of because the law reserved it for certain heirs, who are therefore called compulsory heirs." Article 51 further adds that the presumptive legitime ' 'shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters." How much then is the legitime of legitimate children? Article 888 of the Civil Code provides that the share of the legitimate children in the estate of the parents is one -half of the entire net estate. The illegitimate child gets one-half of the share of a legitimate child. The Family Code further mandates that judgment on the nullity of the marriage and the delivery of the presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the civil registry and the Register of Deeds, otherwise it shall not affect third persons. To make sure that these requirements are complied with, the Family Code further provides in Article 53 that a subsequent marriage is null and void if the judgment on annulment and the delivery of presumptive legitimes are not recorded with the civil registry and the Register of Deeds. What was the spirit and intent of the law when the framers of the Family Code decided to include the delivery of the presumptive legitime as part of the annulment package? It appears that the members of the Family Code committee led by the late illustrious Supreme Court Justice JBL Reyes were inspired by the French laws where the children of annulled marriages were given their legitimes after the parents obtained a decree of annulment. A cursory study of the minutes of the Family Code committee dated July 28,1984 and August 11,1984 reveal that the interest of the framers of the Family Code was "to protect the interests of the children of the first marriage." A tale has oftentimes been told of family disputes arising from the "mana" of the children of the first marriage being diminished (or completely obliterated) because the children of the second marriage whom the deceased parent favored had participated in the inheritance of properties acquired from property relations in the first marriage. To prevent all of these, the partition of the conjugal or community properties
Spirit and intent

Article 888 of the Civil Code provides that the share of the legitimate children in the estate of the parents is one-half of the entire net estate. The illegitimate child gets one-half of the share of a legitimate child.

60 February 2, 2004 Philippine Graphic

of the first marriage during the annulment proceedings must also provide for the delivery of the presumptive legitimes of the children of the annulled marriage. In a case, for example, where a house and lot was acquired during the first marriage, the legitime of the legitimate children is one-half of the property. Their one-half share must be annotated in the title of the property with Register of Deeds and the other half shall be divided equally between the spouses securing an annulment of the marriage. Of course, there may be other ways of dividing their properties, if the parties can come into an agreement. But always, the presumptive legitime of the children must be delivered either in cash, properties or sound securities. It is important for couples on the verge of annulment to bear this provision in mind, particularly in negotiating which property goes to whom. A case in point comes to mind where a wife, Marianna del Rosario, filed for declaration of nullity of marriage against her husband of 21 years, Eduardo del Rosario. In the negotiation for the division of properties, the husband offered to give the family residence, consisting of two lots located in a posh subdivision plus the amount of P500,000. But the wife wanted at least P5 million from the husband in addition to the family residence. The husband would not budge and stated that was all he could afford since he also needed capital for his business in order to sustain the family. So we went into litigation on the annulment without having settled the property. In the answer of the husband, we prayed for the delivery of the presumptive legitime of the children, which is one-half of the conjugal property, and the other half should be divided between the parties. The wife tried to prove that one-half of the real property (the other lot) as her exclusive property because her father gave her P200,000 early in the marriage to buy the second lot. But she was not able to prove that, as the husband maintained that he borrowed money from the bank to be able to purchase the second lot and hence, the second lot was likewise conjugal. In the end the decision of the court was to deliver the presumptive legitime of the children, consisting of one-half of the real property and the other half was divided between the parties as their share in the conjugal property. The wife was not able to get any sum of money, since her onefourth share in the property remains a share annotated at the back of the title and could only be realized, if and when both parties agree to sell the property. For the meantime, the children remain in the family home until such time when their parents can agree to sell the property and divide the proceedswith the children still getting one-half of the proceeds as their presumptive legitime. (N.B. To protect the privacy and confidentiality between attorney and client, the names given are fictitious. Atty. Franco may be reached at Fajardo Law Offices, 7th fir. Cityland Condominium 10 Tower 2, 154 H.V.Dela Costa Street, Ayala Avenue North, Makati City. Tel. Nos. (632) 810-1490; 810-9595; E-Mail: dffatty2003@yahoo.com ). G