Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
YES. 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 in the former's
efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the
household. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or
her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common,
without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of
the party in bad faith in the ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their
common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common
children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the innocent
party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon the termination of the
cohabitation.
FACTS:
Petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal separation, with Appliction for
Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Conjugal Partnership of
Gains. Petitioner alleged that she and respondent are residents of Bugallon,
Pangasinan, but respondent is presently living in the (United States of
America). They were married but are childless.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the totality of petitioner’s evidence was able to prove that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
RULING:
Later, the LSEP case was granted, the CPG (Conjugal Partnership of Gains)
was declared dissolved and liquidated; the land declared conjugal. Alfredo
being the offending spouse, the net profit of his share shall be forfeited in favor
of their daughter, Winifred. Alfredo later donated the land to Winifred. Through
SPA, Alfredo sold the land to Inter-Dimensional Realty for 18M wherein the
latter obtained the TCT in their name free from annotation of the notice of lis
pendens. Mario Siochi then filed a case for specific performance, damages
and the annulment of the donation and sale.
The CA decided that sale between Mario and Alfredo is void. Share of Alfredo
(offending spouse) was forfeited in favor of his daughter Winifred. Alfredo must
pay the 5m DP to Mario with damages. Winifred has the option of either to
dispose of the land or not.
ISSUE:
Wether or not Alfredo’s (offending spouse) entire share of said conjugal
property shall be deemed forfeited as effect of the LSEP case.
HELD:
No. As provided under Art 63 (2) of Family Code— “The decree of legal
separation shall have the ff effects:
(2) the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and
liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the NET
PROFITS earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership,
which shall be forfeited in favor of common children , or if there are none, to
the children of the guilty spouse in previous marriage, if there are none, to the
innocent spouse.
Pursuant to this Article, Alfredo’s share of the conjugal property is not entirely
forfeited in favor of their common child, but only his share of the net profits
earned from said conjugal property.
PROVISIONAL ORDERS
v.
FACTS:
Edward Lacson and Lea Daban Lacson are the paremts of Maowee Daban
Lacson and Maonaa Daban Lacson. For unknown reason, Edward left their
conjugal home thereby leaving Leah to fend for their children. For a period of
18 years, Leah and her children from one place to another on their own.
Records reveal that in a note dated December 10, 1975, Edward promised to
give support his daughters however, aside from occasional giving of some
amount, Edward failed to fulfull his promise. In 1995, Lea instituted an action
for support in behalf of her daughter before the RTC of Iloilo City demanding
the amount of the support her daughters should have recieved. The RTC ruled
in favor of the Plaintiffs and ordered Edward to pay them the amount
equivalent to 216 months worth of support in arrears. The CA affirmed the
decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mother of the petitioner failed to make a demand for
support as required by law.
RULING:
No. The requisite demand for support appears to have been made
sometime in 1975. It may be that Lea made no extrajudicial demand in the
sense of a formal written demand in terms and the imperious tenor commonly
used byb legal advocates in a demand letter. Nonetheless, what would pass
as a demand was, however, defiitely made. Asking one to comply with his
obligation to support owing to the urgency of the situation is no less a demand
because it came by way of a request or a plea.