G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage their joint income.
nt income. In such case, the house and lot were not
which bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the
Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the couple
possessed the following properties:
A house and lot acquired by B on August 3, `1988, one third (1/3)
of the purchase price(representing downpayment) of which he
paid; one third(1/3) was paid by G on February 14, 1990 out of a
cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6,
1989; and the balance was paid out of the spouses joint income;
and
An apartment unit donated to B by an uncle in June 19, 1987.
A) Who owns the foregoing properties?
Since the marriage was declared void ab initio in 2001, no
Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership was ever
established between B and G. Their property relation is governed
by a special co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code
because they were capacitated ot marry each other.
Under Article 147, the wages and salaries of the former spouses
earned during their cohabitation shall be owned by them in equal
shares while properties acquired thru their work or industry shall
be owned by them in proportion to their respective contributions.
Care and maintenance of family is recognized as a valuable
contribution. In the absence of proof as to the value of the
respective contributions, they shall share equally.
If ownership of the house and lot was acquired by B on August 3,
1988 at the time he bought it on installment before he got
married, he shall remain owner of the house and lot but he must
reimburse G for all the amounts she advanced to pay the
purchase price and for one-half share in the last payment from
acquired during their cohabitation, hence, are not co-owned by B
and G.
But if the ownership of the house and lot was acquired during the
cohabitation, the house nad lot will be owned as follows:
(1) 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by B. He is an undivided co-
owner to that extent for his contributions in its acquisition in
the form of the down payment he made before the
celebration of the marriage. The money he use to pay the
downpayment was not earned during the cohabitation,
hence, it is his exclusive property.
(2) 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by G. She is an undivided
co-owner to the extent for her contribution in its acquisition
when she paid 1/3 of the purchase price using the gift was
acquired by G during her cohabitation with B, it is her
exclusive property. It did not consist of wage or salary or fruit
of her work or industry.
(3) 1/3 of the house is co-owned by B and G because the
payment came from their co-owned funds, i.e. , their joint
income during their cohabitation which is shared by them
equally in the absence of any proof to the contrary.
After assuming up their prospective shares, B and G are
undivided co-owners of the house and lot in equal shares.
As to the apartment, it is owned exclusive by B because he
acquired it before their cohabitation. Even if he acquired it
during their cohabitation, it will still be his exclusive property
because it did not come from his wage or salary or from his
work or industry. It was acquired gratuitously from his uncle.
Maria, wife of Pedro, withdrew P5 million from their conjugal funds. With
this money, she constructed a building on a lot which she inherited from
her father. Is the building conjugal or paraphernal? Reasons.

It depends. If the value of the building is more than the value of the land,
the buildingis conjugal and the land becomes conjugal property under
Article 120 of the Family Code. This is a case of reverse accession, where
the building is considered as the principal and the land, the accessory. If,
on the other hand, the value of the land is more than the value of the
building, then the ordinary rule of the accession applies where the land is
the principal and the building, the accessory. In such case, the land remains
paraphernal property and the building becomes paraphernal property.

Note: the rule on reverse accession is applicable only to the regime of

conjugal partnership of gains in both the Family Code and the New Civil
Code. The foregoing answer assumes that CPG is the regime of the
property relations of the spouses.