Está en la página 1de 9


Facts Issue Ruling
1.August 8, 1967-Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and I. Can a sale of a conjugal property be I.
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married. valid without the consent of the other R-No, the sale will not be valid.
2.they purchased a house and lot at Barangay San spouse? L-ART. 124. OF THE FAMILY CODE OF
Francisco, San Pablo City. THE PHIL., Provides in part:
3.The subject property was declared for tax II. Can a conjugal property be held liable The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal
assessment purposes under Assessment of Real for an obligation contracted by either partnership property shall belong to both spouses
Property No. 94-051-2802. spouse? jointly. .In the event that one spouse is
4.The Deed of Absolute Sale, however, was executed incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in
only in favor of the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr. as the administration of the conjugal properties, the
vendee thereof to the exclusion of his wife. other spouse may assume sole powers of
5.December 1, 1993, Marcelino Dailo, Jr. executed a administration. These powers do not include the
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of one powers of disposition or encumbrance which must
Lilibeth Gesmundo, authorizing the latter to obtain a have the authority of the court or the written
loan from petitioner Homeowners Savings and Loan consent of the other spouse. In the absence of
Bank to be secured by the spouses Dailos house and such authority or consent, the disposition or
lot in San Pablo City. encumbrance shall be void
6.Gesmundo obtained a loan in the amount
of P300,000.00 from petitioner. Guiang v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the
7. As security, Gesmundo executed a Real Estate sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of
Mortgage constituted on the subject property. both the husband and wife. In applying Article
8.The transactions, including the the SPA in favor of 124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that
Gesmundo, took place without the knowledge and the absence of the consent of one renders the
consent of respondent. entire sale null and void, including the portion of
9.Upon maturity, the loan remained outstanding. the conjugal property pertaining to the husband
10.petitioner instituted extrajudicial foreclosure who contracted the sale.
proceedings on the mortgaged property.
11. After the extrajudicial sale, a Certificate of Sale II.
was issued in favor of petitioner as the highest R-yes, it can be held liable if the obligation
bidder. redounded to the benefit of the family.
12.After one year without the property being L-Under Article 121 paragraph 3 of the Family
redeemed, petitioner, through its vice-president, Code: [T]he conjugal partnership shall be liable
consolidated the ownership by executing on June 6, for: . . . (3) Debts and obligations contracted by
1996 an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership either spouse without the consent of the other to
and a Deed of Absolute Sale. the extent that the family may have been
13.December 20, 1995-Marcelino Dailo, Jr. Died. benefited.
14.respondent learned that petitioner had already
employed a certain Roldan Brion to clean its
premises and that her car, a Ford sedan, was razed
because Brion allowed a boy to play with fire within
the premises.
15.Claiming that she had no knowledge of the
mortgage constituted on the subject property, which
was conjugal in nature, respondent instituted with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Pablo City,
Civil Case No. SP-2222 (97) for Nullity of Real
Estate Mortgage and Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of
Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale,
Reconveyance with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and Damages against petitioner.
16.petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that the property in
question was the exclusive property of the late
Marcelino Dailo, Jr.
RTC AND CA ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Facts Issue Ruling
1.January 11, 1988-David Pelayo (Pelayo) executed Is it necessary for a consent of one No, the consent may be implied from the acts.
a Deed of Absolute Sale to convey two parcels of spouse to a sale of a conjugal property be
agricultural land (the lots) situated in Panabo, Davao explicit? Sale is a consensual contract that is perfected by
to Melki Perez(perez) mere consent, which may either be express or
2.Loreza Pelayo (Loreza), wife of Pelayo, and whose implied. A wifes consent to the husbands
signature is illegible witnessed the execution of the disposition of conjugal property does not always
deed, signed only on the third page of Perezs have to be explicit or set forth in any particular
application for registration of the deed with the document, so long as it is shown by acts of the
Office of the Register of Deeds in Tagum, Davao wife that such consent or approval was indeed
which was then denied. given.*
3.Perez asked Loreza to sign on the first and second
pages of the deed but she refused. *Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines,
4.August 8, 1991 Perez instituted the instant Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. IV, 5th
complaint for specific performance against Pelayo Ed., pp. 440, 447.
and Lorenza. Defendant Pelayo claimed in any
event, in his Pre-trial brief filed on March 19, 1996,
that the deed was without his wife Lorezas consent,
hence null and void.
160762-Go v Ca
1.Involved in the suit is a 750 square meters (sic) I. Will the conjugal nature of the I.
parcel of lot located at Res. Sec. K, Baguio City, property be destroyed if the registration R-No, it does not destroy the presumption of
registered in the name of Muriel Pucay Yamane, shows only one spouse? conjugal partnership.
wife of Leonardo Yamane, [respondent]. L- Article 116 of the New Civil Code provides
2.the subject property was levied to satisfy the lien that all property acquired during the marriage,
for attorneys fees in the amount of P10,000 by Atty. II. Can the wife bind the conjugal whether the acquisition appears to have been
Guillermo F. De Guzman in Civil Case No. 1841, property for liens charged? made, contracted, or registered in the name of one
entitled Florence Pucay De Gomez, Elsie Pucay or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal,
Kiwas and Muriel Pucay Yamane v. Cypress unless, the contrary is provided.
Corporation, which said counsel handled for Muriel
Pucay and her sister. As a conditio sine qua non for the operation of
3.The said property was scheduled to be sold at this article in favor of the conjugal partnership,
public auction on August 11, 1981. the party who invokes the presumption must first
4.Four days prior to the auction sale, [respondent] prove that the property was acquired during the
filed a Third-Party Claim with the Office of the marriage.
Provincial Sheriff to stop the public auction on the If they acquired it from or specifically during the
ground that the subject property is conjugal property marriage, we then follow the rule that proof of the
and, therefore, should not be held answerable for the acquisition of the subject property during a
personal obligation of the Pucay sisters. marriage suffices to render the statutory
5. the Sheriff proceeded with the auction sale despite presumption operative.
[respondents] protest.
6.The property was sold to spouses Josephine [and] Diancin v. Court of Appeals, that all the property
Henry Go (or [petitioners]) as highest bidder. acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose
7.September 4, 1984, [respondent] filed name the same is registered, during the marriage
a Complaint with is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, against of gains, unless it is proved that it pertains
[petitioners] and Sheriff Melgar for annulment and exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
cancellation of auction sale upon the same ground
stated in the abovementioned third-party claim. II.
8.Citing the Order of R-Yes, but only in specific conditions.
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch V in L-Under the New Civil Code, a wife may bind
LRC Case No. 2288, which ordered the cancellation the conjugal partnership only when she purchases
of TCT No. 12491 and directed the Register of things necessary for the support of the family, or
Deeds to issue new title in the name of Josephine when she borrows money for that purpose upon
Go. her husbands failure to deliver the needed sum;
9.[petitioners] moved to dismiss the complaint on when administration of the conjugal partnership is
the ground of res judicata. In the Order transferred to the wife by the courts or by the
dated November 28, 1984, the motion was denied by husband;or when the wife gives moderate
the trial court. donations for charity.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner while CA
reversed the RTC decision and ruled in favor of the Failure to establish any of these circumstances in
respondent. the present case means that the conjugal asset
may not be bound to answer for a spouses
personal obligation.

The ruling in Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. De

Garcia that before a conjugal property could be
held liable for the obligation contracted by a
spouse, there must be a showing of some
advantage or benefit that accrued to the conjugal

165879-Ching v Goyanko
Facts Issue Ruling
1.December 30, 1947, Joseph Goyanko (Goyanko) I. Can a husband sell to his wife? I.
and Epifania dela Cruz (Epifania) were married. II. Can a man sell to his concubine? R-NO. The husband cannot sell to his wife.
2.Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents
acquired a 661 square meter property located at 29 F. L-ARTICLE 1490. The husband and wife cannot
Cabahug St., Cebu City. sell property to each other, except:
3.In turn, Goyanko executed on October 12, 1993 a (1) When a separation of property was agreed
deed of sale[3]over the property in favor of his upon in the marriage settlements; or
common-law-wife-herein petitioner Maria B. Ching. (2) When there has been a judicial separation of
4.Respondents thus filed with the Regional Trial property under Article 191.
Court of Cebu City a complaint for recovery of
property and damages against petitioner, praying for II.
the nullification of the deed of sale L- Article 1490 of the New Civil Code
5.After Goyankos death on March 11, 1996,
respondents discovered that ownership of the The proscription against sale of property
property had already been transferred in the name of between spouses applies even to common law
petitioner. relationships.

.:In Calimlim-Canullas v. Hon. Fortun, etc., et

al., the court ruled that,
The contract of sale was null and void for
being contrary to morals and public policy. The
sale was made by a husband in favor of a
concubine after he had abandoned his family and
left the conjugal home where his wife and
children lived and from whence they derived their
support. The sale was subversive of the stability
of the family, a basic social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects.

The prohibitions apply to a couple living as

husband and wife without benefit of marriage,
otherwise, the condition of those who incurred
guilt would turn out to be better than those in
legal union.

151967-Francisco v Master Ironworks

Facts Issue Ruling
1.January 15, 1983-Josefina Castillo 24 years old, Can co-ownership present in unions R- yes
married Eduardo G. Francisco. without marriage?
2.Eduardo was then employed as the vice president L-Article 148 of the Family Code, a co-
in a private corporation. ownership may ensue in case of cohabitation
3.August 31, 1984, the Imus Rural Bank, Inc. (Imus where, for instance, one party has a pre-existing
Bank) executed a deed of absolute sale valid marriage provided that the parents prove
for P320,000.00 in favor of Josefina Castillo their actual joint contribution of money, property
Francisco, married to Eduardo Francisco, covering or industry and only to the extent of their
two parcels of residential land with a house. proportionate interest thereon.
4.February 15, 1985- by Eduardo executed an
Affidavit of Waiver where he declared that before IF the spouse fails to adduce preponderance of
his marriage to Josefina, the latter purchased two evidence that she contributed money, property or
parcels of land, including the house constructed industry in the acquisition of the subject property
thereon, with her own savings, and that he was and, hence, is not a co-owner of the property:
waiving whatever claims he had over the property.
5.January 13, 1986, Josefina mortgaged the said
property to Leonila Cando for a loan
of P157,000.00.It appears that Eduardo affixed his
marital conformity to the deed.
6.June 11, 1990, Eduardo, who was then the General
Manager and President of Reach Out Trading
International, bought 7,500 bags of cement
worth P768,750.00 from Master Iron Works &
Construction Corporation (MIWCC) but failed to
pay for the same.
7. On November 27, 1990, MIWCC filed a
complaint against him in the RTC of Makati City for
the return of the said commodities, or the value
thereof in the amount of P768,750.00.
8.January 8, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment
in favor of MIWCC.
9.The court ordered for to pay the amount owed.
10.Sheriff Alejo issued a Notice of Levy on
Execution/Attachment over the lots covered by TCT
No. 87976 (60550) and 87977 (60551) for the
recovery of the balance of the amount due under the
decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 90-325.
11.July 3, 1994, Josefina executed an Affidavit of
Third Party Claim over the two parcels of land in
which she claimed that they were her paraphernal
property, and that her husband Eduardo had no
proprietary right or interest over them as evidenced
by his affidavit of waiver, a copy of which she
attached to her affidavit.
12.She, likewise, requested Sheriff Alejo to cause
the cancellation of the notice of levy on
execution/attachment earlier issued by him.
13.July 28, 1994, Josefina filed a Complaint against
MIWCC and Sheriff Alejo in the RTC of Paraaque
for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order
14.The sale at public auction proceeded. MIWCC
made a bid for the property for the price
of P1,350,000.00.
15.MIWCC cited Article 116 of the Family Code of
the Philippines and averred that the property was the
conjugal property of Josefina and her husband
Eduardo, who purchased the same on August 31,
1984 after their marriage on January 14, 1983.
MIWCC asserted that Eduardo executed the affidavit
of waiver to evade the satisfaction of the decision in
Civil Case No. 90-3251 and to place the property
beyond the reach of creditors; hence, the said
affidavit was null and void.
16.Josefina filed a petition to annul her marriage to
Eduardo in the RTC of Paraaque, Metro Manila, on
the ground that when they were married on January
15, 1983, Eduardo was already married to one
Carmelita Carpio.
17.Josefina and Carmelita testified in Civil Case No.
95-0169. Josefina declared that during her marriage
to Eduardo, she acquired the property covered by
TCT Nos. 87976 (60550) and 87977 (60551),
through the help of her sisters and brother, and that
Eduardo had no participation whatsoever in the said
18.September 9, 1996, the RTC of Paraaque
rendered judgment declaring the marriage between
Josefina and Eduardo as null and void for being
Rtc ruled in favor of josefina but CA reversed it and
ruled in favor of MIWCC.
159521-Gonzales v Gonzales

1. In March 1977, Francisco Gonzales, petitioner, Whether or not the property regime of a I.
and Erminda Gonzales, respondent, started living as void marriage should be partitioned R-yes.
husband and wife. equally between spouses. L-ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are
2. After two (2) years, or on February 4, 1979, they capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
got married. with each other as husband and wife without the
3. October 29, 1992, respondent filed a complaint benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their
for annulment of marriage with prayer for support wages and salaries shall be owned by them in
pendente lite. equal shares and the property acquired by both of
4. During the time they lived together, they acquired them through their work or industry shall be
properties. She managed their pizza business and governed by the rules on co-ownership.
worked hard for its development.
5. She prays for the declaration of the nullity of their In the absence of proof to the contrary,
marriage and for the dissolution of the conjugal properties acquired while they lived together shall
partnership of gains. be presumed to have been obtained by their joint
6. The husband denied that she was the one who efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
managed the pizza business and claimed that he them in equal shares. For purposes of this
exclusively owns the properties existing during their Article, a party who did not participate in the
marriage. acquisition by the other party of any property
7. The court found that the husband is afflicted with shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the
satyriasis, and is psychologically incapacitated, so it acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted
declared the marriage void ab initio. in the care and maintenance of the family and of
8. the court of Appeals ruled that the properties the household."
should be divided equally between the parties.

146294-Abing v. Waiyan
1. the parties hereto lived together as husband and Can a co-owner file action for ejectment? I.
wife from 1986 to 1995 without the benefit of R. YES.
marriage. whether or not the property subject L-Article 487[8] of the Civil Code, a co-owner
2. sometime in December 1991, Juliet left for Korea of the suit pertains to the exclusive may bring an action for ejectment against a co-
and worked thereat, sending money to John which owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts
ownership of petitioner ?
the latter deposited in their joint account. exclusive ownership of a common property.
3. In 1992, the original 2-storey residential house II.
underwent renovation. To it was annexed a new R NO.
structure which housed a sari-sari store. This new L- ART. 147. When a man and a woman who
structure and the sari-sari store thereat are the are capacitated to marry each other, live
properties involved in this case exclusively with each other as husband and wife
4. , Juliet was still in Korea when the annex structure without the benefit of marriage or under a void
was constructed in 1992. marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned
5. 1995, the relationship between the two turned by them in equal shares and the property
from bad to worse. Hence, they decided to partition acquired by both of them through their work or
their properties industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
6. Under their unsigned agreement, John shall leave ownership.
the couples dwelling with Juliet paying him the
amount of P428,870.00 representing Johns share in In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties
all their properties. acquired while they lived together shall be
7. John alleges that the annex property is his presumed to have been obtained by their joint
exclusive ownership. efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
8. Juliet, however, failed to make good the balance. them in equal shares.
On account thereof,
9. John demanded of her to vacate the annex In the absence, as here, of proofs to the contrary,
structure housing the sari-sari store. Juliet refused, any property acquired by common-law spouses
prompting John to file an ejectment suit against her during their period of cohabitation is presumed to
before the MTC of Mankayan, Benguet. have been obtained thru their joint efforts and is
owned by them in equal shares. Their property
relationship is governed by the rules on co-
ownership. And under this regime, they owned
their properties in common in equal shares.