CASE: 6 If property bought by installments (FC 118) !o"ellanos "# CA$ %#&# 'o# 1(()*8 !

une 18$ 1++* Fa,ts: Daniel Jovellanos contracted with Philamlife a (lease and conditional sale agreement) of a property. When the agreement took place, Daniel was still married to his first wife, Leonor, with whom he had three children. Leonor died on January , !"#". $ay %&, !"'(, Daniel was remarried to )nnette (respondent). Decem*er !+, !"(!, $ercy (daughter from first marriage) and her hus*and, *uilt an e,tension at the *ack of the said property. January +, !"(#, the lease was paid and Philamlife e,ecuted a deed of a*solute sale to Daniel. -he following day, he then donated the said property to his children in the first marriage (petitioners). .eptem*er +, !"+#, Daniel died. )nnette now claims that the said property is the con/ugal property *elonging to the second marriage due to the fact that the deed of a*solute sale was dated during the cele*ration of their marriage (Jan. +, !"(#).

Issue-s: .el/: -he 1ourt held that the said property *elongs to the second marriage, *ut also proclaims that reim*ursements should *e made to the children of the first marriage (in line with )2- !!+ of the 31). -o which marriage does the property *elong to as con/ugal property0

&atio:

-he contract entered into *y Daniel and Philamlife is specifically denominated as a 4Lease and 1onditional .ale )greement4 with a lease period of twenty years. During the twenty5year period, Daniel had only the right of possession over the property. -he lessor transfers merely the temporary use and en/oyment of the thing leased. 6enerally, ownership is transferred upon delivery, however, the ownership may still *e with the seller until full payment of the price is made. 7nly at the time when the payments are made in full will the deed of a*solute sale *e given, entitling the *uyer (Daniel) as the true owner, rather than /ust having inchoate rights to the property. -he time when he was a*le to pay the remaining *alance, he

was already married to his second wife, )nnette, which makes the said property as their con/ugal property. A&0 118: any amount advanced *y the partnership or *y either or *oth spouses shall *e reim*ursed Depriving the children from the first will *e unfair due to the fact that the lease was contracted during the first marriage, wherein a portion of the payment came from.

Case: 1* Charges upon an/ obligations of C1% .omeo2ners "# 3ailo$ %#&# 'o# 1458(*$ 6ar#11$ *((4 Fa,ts: 2espondent $iguela 1. Dailo and $arcelino Dailo, Jr. were married on )ugust +, !"'(. During their marriage, the spouses purchased a house and lot situated at 8arangay .an 3rancisco, .an Pa*lo 1ity from a certain .andra Dalida. -he su*/ect property was declared for ta, assessment purposes under )ssessment of 2eal Property 9o. ":5 &#!5 +& . -he Deed of )*solute .ale, however, was e,ecuted only in favor of the late $arcelino Dailo, Jr. as vendee thereof to the e,clusion of his wife. 7n Decem*er !, !""%, $arcelino Dailo, Jr. e,ecuted a .pecial Power of )ttorney (.P)) in favor of one Lili*eth 6esmundo, authori;ing the latter to o*tain a loan from petitioner <omeowners .avings and Loan 8ank to *e secured *y the spouses Dailo=s house and lot in .an Pa*lo 1ity. >pon maturity, the loan remained outstanding. )s a result, petitioner instituted e,tra/udicial foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged property. )fter the e,tra/udicial sale thereof, a 1ertificate of .ale was issued in favor of petitioner as the highest *idder. )fter the lapse of one year without the property *eing redeemed, petitioner, through its vice5president, consolidated the ownership thereof *y e,ecuting on June ', !""' an )ffidavit of 1onsolidation of 7wnership and a Deed of )*solute .ale. ?n the meantime, $arcelino Dailo, Jr. died on Decem*er &, !""#. ?n one of her visits to the su*/ect property, respondent learned that petitioner had already employed a certain 2oldan 8rion to clean its premises and that her car, a 3ord sedan, was ra;ed *ecause 8rion allowed a *oy to play with fire within the premises. 1laiming that she had no knowledge of the mortgage constituted on the su*/ect property, which was con/ugal in nature, respondent instituted with the 2egional -rial 1ourt, 8ranch ", .an Pa*lo 1ity, 1ivil 1ase 9o. .P5 ("() for Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage and Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale, Reconveyance with Prayer for Preli inary !n"unction and

Da ages against petitioner. ?n the latter=s Answer with Counterclai , petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the property in @uestion was the e,clusive property of the late $arcelino Dailo, Jr. Issue-s: W79 the con/ugal partnership is lia*le for the payment of the loan o*tained *y the late $arcelino Dailo, Jr. the same having redounded to the *enefit of the family.

.el/: &atio: >nder )rticle ! ! of the 3amily 1ode, AB-Che con/ugal partnership shall *e lia*le forD . . . (%) De*ts and o*ligations contracted *y either spouse without the consent of the other to the e,tent that the family may have *een *enefitedE . . . .F 3or the su*/ect property to *e held lia*le, the o*ligation contracted *y the late $arcelino Dailo, Jr. must have redounded to the *enefit of the con/ugal partnership. -here must *e the re@uisite showing then of some advantage which clearly accrued to the welfare of the spouses. 1ertainly, to make a con/ugal partnership respond for a lia*ility that should appertain to the hus*and alone is to defeat and frustrate the avowed o*/ective of the new 1ivil 1ode to show the utmost concern for the solidarity and well5*eing of the family as a unit. -he *urden of proof that the de*t was contracted for the *enefit of the con/ugal partnership of gains lies with the creditor5party litigant claiming as such. Ei incu #it pro#atio $ui dicit, non $ui negat (he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove). Petitioner=s sweeping conclusion that the loan o*tained *y the late $arcelino Dailo, Jr. to finance the construction of housing units without a dou*t redounded to the *enefit of his family, without adducing ade@uate proof, does not persuade this 1ourt. 7ther than petitioner=s *are allegation, there is nothing from the records of the case to compel a finding that, indeed, the loan o*tained *y the late $arcelino Dailo, Jr. redounded to the *enefit of the family. 1onse@uently, the con/ugal partnership cannot *e held lia*le for the payment of the principal o*ligation. 9o.

Case: 18 Charges upon an/ obligations of C1% (2ith ,onsent) Aguete "# 1'7$ %#&# 'o# 1)(166$ April 6$ *(11 Fa,ts:

7n January !%, !"+%, spouses Jose ). 2os and Gstrella )guete filed a complaint for the annulment of the 2eal Gstate $ortgage and all legal proceedings taken there under against P98, Laoag 8ranch *efore the 1ourt of 3irst ?nstance, ?locos 9orte docketed as 1ivil 1ase 9o. (+&%. -he complaint was later amended and was raffled to the 2egional -rial 1ourt, 8ranch !#, Laoag 1ity. -he averments in the complaint disclosed that plaintiff5appellee Joe ). 2os o*tained a loan of P!!#,&&&.&& from P98 Laoag 8ranch on 7cto*er !:, !"(: and as security for the loan, plaintiff5appellee 2os e,ecuted a real estate mortgage involving a parcel of land H Lot 9o. "!'! of the 1adastral .urvey of Laoag, with all the improvements thereon descri*ed under -ransfer 1ertificate of -itle 9o. -5"':'. >pon maturity, the loan remained outstanding. )s a result, P98 instituted e,tra/udicial foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged property. )fter the e,tra/udicial sale thereof, a 1ertificate of .ale was issued in favor of P98, Laoag as the highest *idder. )fter the lapse of one (!) year without the property *eing redeemed, the property was consolidated and registered in the name of P98,Laoag 8ranch on )ugust !&, !"(+. 1laiming that she (plaintiff5appellee Gstrella )guete) has no knowledge of the loan o*tained *y her hus*and nor she consented to the mortgage instituted on the con/ugal property H a complaint was filed to annul the proceedings pertaining to the mortgage, sale and consolidation of the property H interposing the defense that her signatures affi,ed on the documents were forged and that the loan did not redound to the *enefit of the family. ?n its answer, P98 prays for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action, and insists that it was plaintiffs5appellees= own acts BofC omissionIconnivance that *ar them from recovering the su*/ect property on the ground of estoppel, laches, a*andonment and prescription.

Issue-s: .el/: &atio: P98 Laoag does not dou*t that )guete, as evidenced *y her signature, consented to 2os= mortgage to P98 of the su*/ect property. 7n the other hand, )guete denies ever having consented to the loan and also denies affi,ing her signature to the mortgage and loan documents. -he hus*and cannot alienate or encum*er any con/ugal real property without the consent, e,press or implied, of the wife. .hould the hus*and do so, then the contract 9o. -he 1ourt affirms the appellate court=s decision. W79 or not the 1) erred in declaring the real estate mortgage valid.

is voida*le. )rticle !(% of the 1ivil 1ode allows )guete to @uestion 2os= encum*rance of the su*/ect property. <owever, the same article does not guarantee that the courts will declare the annulment of the contract. )nnulment will *e declared only upon a finding that the wife did not give her consent. ?n the present case, we follow the conclusion of the appellate court and rule that )guete gave her consent to 2os= encum*rance of the su*/ect property. -he documents disavowed *y )guete are acknowledged *efore a notary pu*lic, hence they are pu*lic documents. Gvery instrument duly acknowledged and certified as provided *y law may *e presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment *eing pri a facie evidence of the e,ecution of the instrument or document involved. -he e,ecution of a document that has *een ratified *efore a notary pu*lic cannot *e disproved *y the mere denial of the alleged signer. P98 was correct when it stated that petitioners= omission to present other positive evidence to su*stantiate their claim of forgery was fatal to petitioners= cause. Petitioners did not present any corro*orating witness, such as a handwriting e,pert, who could authoritatively declare that )guete=s signatures were really forged. 2os himself cannot *ring action against P98, for no one can come *efore the courts with unclean hands. ?n their memorandum *efore the trial court, petitioners themselves admitted that 2os forged )guete=s signatures.

Case: *8 Charges upon an/ obligations of C1% (personal /ebts) 1eople "# 9agrimas$ *+ SC&A 145 Fa,ts: 3roilan Lagrimas was convicted for the crime of murder and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to pay indemnification to satisfy the civil lia*ility incum*ent upon him. 7n 3e*ruary (, !"'&, the appellants filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on the property of the accused, such motion *eing granted in an order of $arch #, !"'&.

)fter trial, the lower court found the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the appellants as such heirs in the sum of P',&&&.&& plus the additional sum of P!&,&&&.&& in the concept of damages, attorneyJs fees and *urial e,penses. )n appeal from the /udgment was elevated to this 1ourt *y the accused *ut thereafter withdrawn, the /udgment, therefore, *ecoming final on 7cto*er !!, !"' . ) writ of e,ecution to cover the civil indemnity was issued *y the lower court upon motion of appellants. ) levy was had on eleven parcels of land in the province declared for ta, purposes in the name of the accused. -he sale thereof at pu*lic auction was scheduled on January #, !"'# *ut on Decem*er ", !"': the wife of the accused, $ercedes )guirre de Lagrimas, filed a motion to @uash the writ of attachment as well as the writ of e,ecution with the allegation that the property levied upon *elonged to the con/ugal partnership and, therefore, could not *e held lia*le for the pecuniary indemnity the hus*and was re@uired to pay. Judge granted such petition.

Issue-s: W79 the payment for the civil lia*ilityIindemnification *e collected from the con/ugal property.

.el/: -he 1ourt states that the appealed order of )ugust (, !"'# is set aside and the case remanded to the court of origin for the reception of evidence in accordance with this opinion. (-he heirs of Pelagio 1agro, are given the opportunity to present evidence as to how the partnership assets could *e made to respond, this on the assumption that the property levied upon does not *elong e,clusively to the convicted spouse.)

&atio: -he indemnities ad/udged *y the 1ourt in their favor may only *e charged against the e,clusive properties of the accused if he has any, or against his share in the partnership assets after li@uidation thereof if any still remains after the payment of all the items enumerated in article !'! of the said 1ivil 1ode. ?f the appealed order were to *e upheld, he would *e in effect e,empt therefrom, the heirs of the offended party *eing made to suffer still further. -he law speaks of 4partnership assets.4 ?t contemplates that the responsi*ilities to which enumerated in )rticle !'!, chargea*le against such assets, must *e complied with first. ?t is thus o*vious that the termination of the con/ugal partnership is not contemplated as a prere@uisite. Whatever dou*t may still remain should *e erased *y the concluding portion of this article which provides that 4at the time of the li@uidation of the partnership such spouse shall *e charged for what has *een paid for the purposes a*ove5mentioned.4

?t is thus apparent that the legal scheme cannot *e suscepti*le to the charge that for a transgression of the law *y either hus*and or wife, the rest of the family may *e made to *ear *urdens of an e,tremely onerous character. ?t is for this reason that the court is to take another look and consider the evidence presented in order to uphold /ustice.

Case: 5( :2nership$ a/ministration an/ en;oyment (!oint A/ministration) Alinas "# Alinas$ %#&# 'o# 148(8($ April 18$ *((8 Fa,ts:

.pouses 7nesiforo and 2osario )linas (petitioners) separated sometime in !"+ , with 2osario moving to Pagadian 1ity and 7nesiforo moving to $anila. -hey left *ehind two lots identified as Lot +"'585"5) with a *odega standing on it and Lot +"'585"58 with petitionersJ house. -hese two lots are the su*/ect of the present petition. Petitioner 7nesiforo )linas (7nesiforo) and respondent Kictor )linas(Kictor) are *rothers. Petitioners allege that they entrusted their properties to Kictor and Glena )linas (respondent spouses) with the agreement that any income from rentals of the properties should *e remitted to the .ocial .ecurity .ystem (...) and to the 2ural 8ankof 7ro@uieta 1ity (287), as such rentals were *elieved sufficient to pay off petitionersJ loans with said institutions. Lot +"'585"5) with the *odega was mortgaged as security for the loan o*tained from the 287, while Lot +"'585"58 with the house was mortgaged to the .... 7nesiforo alleges that he left *lank papers with his signature on them to facilitate the administration of said properties. .ometime in !""%, petitioners discovered that their two lots were already titled in the name of respondent spouses. 2ecords show that after Lot +"'585"5) was e,tra5/udicially foreclosed, -ransfer 1ertificate of -itle (-1-) 9o. -5!!+#% covering said property was issued in the name of mortgagee 287 on 9ovem*er !%, !"+(. 7n $ay , !"++, the duly authori;ed representative of 287 e,ecuted a Deed of ?nstallment .ale of 8ankJs )c@uired )ssets conveying Lot +"'585"5) to respondent spouses. 287Js -1- over Lot +"'585"5) was then cancelled and on 3e*ruary , !"+", -1- 9o. -5! '': covering said lot was issued in the name of respondent spouses.

Issue-s: .el/: &atio: 9o. 1onsent of *oth spouses must *e present. W79 the sale of the con/ugal property of the petitioners is valid.

Art# 1*8: 0he a/ministration an/ en;oyment of the ,on;ugal partnership property shall be to both spouses ;ointly# ?n the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise una*le to participate in the administration of the con/ugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. -hese powers do not include the powers of disposition or encum*rance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absen,e of su,h authority or ,onsent the /isposition or en,umbran,e shall be "oi/. , , ,

Case: 56 :2nership$ a/ministration an/ en;oyment (3isposition an/ En,umbran,e) Cheeseman "# IAC$ 1+5 SC&A +5 Fa,ts: Decem*er :, !"(& H -homas 1heesman and 1riselda 1heesman were married *ut have *een separated since 3e*ruary !#, !"+!. July !, !"+! 1riselda sold the property to Gstelita Padilla without knowledge and consent of -homas. July %!, !"+! H -homas filed a suit for the annulment of the sale on the ground that the transaction had *een e,ecuted without his knowledge and consent. 1riselda filed an answer alleging that the property sold was paraphernal, having purchased the property from her own moneyE that -homas, an )merican was dis@ualified to have any interest or right of ownership in the land andE that Gstelita was a *uyer in good faith. During the trial, it was found out that the transfer of property took place during the e,istence of their marriage as it was ac@uired on June :, !"(:. June :, !"+ H 2-1 declared the sale e,ecuted *y 1riselda void a* initio and ordered the delivery of the property to -homas as administrator of the con/ugal property. -homas appealed to ?)1 where he assailed the granting of GstelitaLs petition for relief and resolution of matters not su*/ect of said petitionE in declaring valid the sale to Gstelita without his knowledge and consent. 7n January (, !"+', ?)1 affirmed summary /udgment decision.

Issue-s: W79 1riselda can dispose of the property without the consent of his foreigner hus*and.

.el/: &atio: )t any rate, 1heeseman has no capacity to @uestion the su*se@uent sale of the said property *y his wife on the theory that in doing so, he is merely e,ercising the prerogative of a hus*and in respect to con/ugal property. Mes.

Gven if the property was considered to *e con/ugal, this would accord to the alien hus*and not insu*stantial interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. -his is a right that the 1onstitution does not permit him to have.

Case: 8* :2nership$ a/ministration an/ en;oyment (3isposition an/ En,umbran,e) Fuentes "# &o,a$ %#&# 'o# 1)8+(*$ April *1$ *(1( Fa,ts: 7n, 7ct !!, !"+ , -arciano 2oca *ought a %#+5s@uare meter lot in Nam*ales from his mother. .i, years later in !"++, -arciano offered to sell the lot to the petitioners 3uentes spouses through the help of )tty. Plagata who would prepare the documents and re@uirements to complete the sale. ?n the agreement *etween -arciano and 3uentes spouses there will *e a Php '&,&&& down payment and Php !:&,&&& will *e paid upon the removal of -arciano of certain structures on the land and after the consent of the estranged wife of -arciano, 2osario, would *e attained. )tty. Plagata thus went a*out to complete such tasks and claimed that he went to $anila to get the signature of 2osario *ut notari;ed the document at Nam*oanga. -he deed of sale was e,ecuted January !!, !"+". )s time passed, -arciano and 2osario died while the 3uentes spouses and possession and control over the lot. Gight years later in !""(, the children of -arciano and 2osario filed a case to annul the saleand reconvey the property on the ground that the sale was void since the consent of 2osario was not attained and that 2osarios=signature was a mere forgery.

Issue-s: .el/: 9o. -he sale of con/ugal property done *y -arciano without the consent of 2osario is completely void under )rt ! : of the family code. W79 the sale of the said property is valid.

&atio: Art# 1*8# , , , ?n the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise una*le to participate in the administration of the con/ugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. -hese powers do not include the powers of

disposition or encum*rance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. ?n the a*sence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encum*rance shall *e void. , , , ?t is argued *y the .pouses 3uentes that it is only the spouse, 2osario, who can file such a case to assail the validity of the sale *ut given that 2osario was already dead no one could *ring the action anymore. -he .1 ruled that such position is wrong since as stated a*ove, that sale was void from the *eginning. 1onse@uently, the land remained the property of -arciano and 2osario despite that sale. When the two died, they passed on the ownership of the property to their heirs, namely, the 2ocas. )s lawful owners, the 2ocas had the right, under )rticle : " of the 1ivil 1ode, to e,clude any person from its en/oyment and disposal.

Case: 88 Effe,ts of 3issolution 0arrosa "# 3e 9eon$ %#&# 'o# 184(65$ !uly *5$ *((+ Fa,ts:

7n July &, !"'#, 8onifacio 7. De Leon, then single, and P<<1 entered into a 1onditional 1ontract to .ell for the purchase of a lot. 7n )pril :, !"'+, 8onifacio married )nita de Leon. 3ollowing the full payment of the cost price for the lot, P<<1 e,ecuted, on June , !"(&, a 3inal Deed of .ale in favor of 8onifacio. .u*se@uently, 8onifacio, for PhP !",&&&, sold the lot to his sister Lita, and his hus*and 3eli,-arrosa (Petitioners). -he deed of sale dated Jnauary ! , !"(: did not *ear the written consent and signature of )nita. 7n 3e*ruary ", !""'. 8onifacio died. -hree months later, the -arrosas registered the Deed of .ale. Danilo and Kilma (children of 8onifacio) filed a 9otice of )dverse 1laim *efore the 2egister of Deeds of Oue;on 1ity to protect their rights over the su*/ect property, as well as, a reconveyance suit.

Issue-s: W79 the purchased property is the part of the con/ugal property of 8onifacio and his wife.

.el/:

Mes. -he 1ourt also pronounces that as a matter of fairness and e@uity, the share of 8onifacio after the li@uidation of the partnership should *e lia*le to reim*urse the amount paid *y the -arrosas. ?t is a well5settled principle that no person should un/ustly enrich himself at the e,pense of another.

&atio:

)rticle !'& of the 1ivil 1ode provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to *elong to the con/ugal partnership unless it is proved that it pertains e,clusively to the hus*and or the wife. -he sale of one5half of the con/ugal property without li@uidation of the partnership is void. Prior to the li@uidation of the con/ugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the con/ugal assets is in,hoate, a mere e,pectancy. -herefore, even on the supposition that 8onifacio sold his portion of the con/ugal partnership, the sale is still theoretically void, for the right of the hus*and or the wife to one5half of the con/ugal partnership the sale is still theoretically void, for the right of the hus*and or the wife to one5half of the con/ugal assets does not vest until the li@uidation of the con/ugal partnership.

Case: 48 !u/i,ial Separation of 1roperty (For suffi,ient ,ause) Sales "# Sales$ %#&# 'o# 1)88(5$ !uly 15$ *((+ Fa,ts: 7n June !', &&%, after the decision *ecame final, $arywin filed a motion for e,ecution and a manifestation listing her assets with 2eynolan for the purpose of having them partitioned. ?n an 7rder dated .eptem*er %, &&%, the 2-1 set the case for hearing on .eptem*er #, &&% and ordered the reception of evidence on the parties= respective claims. -he hearing was reset twice to 9ovem*er !%, &&% and January , &&:. -he 9ovem*er !%, &&% hearing was cancelled due to the a*sence of the presiding /udge who was on a seminar at -agaytay during that time. 8ut the minutes of the session that day shows that the counsels for *oth parties signed for the ne,t hearing on January , &&:. 7n 9ovem*er :, &&%, $arywin filed a reiterative motion for e,ecution to implement the decision and to order partition of their common properties. .he *rought to the attention of the court the ! units of townhouses at Pavierville .u*division, Oue;on 1ity, four units of which were sold, leaving eight units for disposition *etween her and 2eynolan. .he proposed to give out two units to their son $aindryann and e@ually divide the remaining si, units *etween her and 2eynolan. .he also alleged that she tried to o*tain 2eynolan=s approval on the proposed partition of properties, *ut to no avail. 9ovem*er +, &&% the reiterative motion was heard in the a*sence of 2eynolan and his counsel. 7n the same date, 2-1 approved the partition proposed *y $arywin. 7n )pril ! , &&:, the 2-1 denied 2eynolan=s motion for reconsideration. Issue-s:

W79 the 1) erred in entertaining respondent=s appeal assailing the 2-1 orders dated 9ovem*er +, &&%.

.el/: 97. the 1ourt held that the present case *e remanded to the lower court for further reception of evidence in accordance with the 2-1=s 7rder dated .ept %, &&%. &atio: ?ncidentally, however, there were matters of genuine concern that had to *e addressed prior to the dissolution of the property relations of the parties as a result of the declaration of nullity of their marriage. Allegations regar/ing the ,olle,tion of rentals 2ithout proper a,,ounting$ sale of ,ommon properties 2ithout the husban/<s ,onsent an/ misappropriation of the pro,ee/s thereof$ are fa,tual issues 2hi,h ha"e to be a//resse/ in or/er to /etermine 2ith ,ertainty the fair an/ reasonable /i"ision an/ /istribution of properties /ue to ea,h party# -he 1ourt remands the case to the lower court for reception of evidence in accordance to 2-1=s 7rder dated .eptem*er %, &&%. -he 1ourt of )ppeals held that the 2-1=s recall of its previous order for further reception of evidence deprives and violates 2eynolan=s constitutional right to property.