Article 134

By Dione Mendoza

JUDICIAL SEPARATION OF PROPERTY

If the future spouses did not execute any written marital agreement providing that the separation of property regime (Art. 143) will govern their property relationship (Art. 74) they cannot alter their property relationship (Art. 75) to a separate property regime after marriage without mandatory judicial approval.

Page 432. A and B did not execute any written marital agreement providing that the separation of property regime will govern their property relationship they cannot alter their property relationship ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY to a separate property regime after marriage without mandatory judicial approval.

Kapag hindi gumawa ang mag-asawa ng written marital agreement bago sila ikasala, na nagsasaad na ang separation of property regime ang mamamahala sa kanilang property relationship, hindi nila pwedeng baguhin ang kanilang property relationship at gawing separate property regime pagkatapos ikasal nang walang mandatory judicial approval.

The civil code provides that separation of property shall not prevail unless expressly stipulated in the marriage settlements before the union is solemnized or by judicial decree during the existence of the marriage.

Garcia v. Manzano http://prezi.com/zhmzjaf_upmm/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

Article 135

By AtoyBMonteza

Article 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:

(1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction;

(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared an absentee;

(3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been decreed by the court;

(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or failed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as provided for in Article 101;

(5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements has abused that power; and

(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.

In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2) and (3), the presentation of the final judgment against the guilty or absent spouse shall be enough basis for the grant of the decree of judicial separation of property.

ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
AtoyBMonteza

• Estrella and Severino were married in Bacolod and begotten 6 children.
• During their marriage, they acquired several parcels of land and were engage in various businesses.
• The plaintiff filed an action against her husband for the separation of their properties. She further alleged that her husband aside from abandoning her, also mismanaged their conjugal properties.
• On the other hand, Severino contended that he had always visited the conjugal home and had provided support for the family despite his frequent absences when he was in Manila to supervise the expansion of their business.
• Since 1955, he had not slept in the conjugal dwelling instead stayed in his office at Texboard Factory although he paid short visits in the conjugal home, which was affirmed by Estrella. The latter suspected that her husband had a mistress, hence, the urgency of the separation of property for the fear that her husband might squander and dispose the conjugal assets in favor of the concubine.
• ISSUE: WON there has been abandonment on the part of the defendant and WON there has been an abused of his authority as administrator of the conjugal partnership.
• HELD:
• The husband has never desisted in the fulfillment of his marital obligations and support of the family.
• To be legally declared as to have abandoned the conjugal home, one must have willfully and with intention of not coming back and perpetual separation.
• There must be real abandonment and not mere separation. In fact, the husband never failed to give monthly financial support as admitted by the wife. This negates the intention of coming home to the conjugal abode.  The plaintiff even testified that the husband “paid short visits” implying more than one visit.
• There is no evidence on the record to show that he has squandered the conjugal assets. The refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the family businesses does not constitute in abuse.

—————————————

• What is civil interdiction?

  Atoy B Monteza

  Civil interdiction is a legal restraint upon a person incapable of managing his estate, because of mental incapacity, from signing any deed or doing any act to his own prejudice, without the consent of his curator or interdictor.

  Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty imposed upon a person sentenced with a principal penalty not lower than reclusion temporal ranging from 12 years and one day to 20 years.

  Civil interdiction deprives the following rights of the offender: Parental authority,
  guardianship as to the person or property of any ward, marital authority,manage his properties, dispose of such property by any act or conveyance intervivos.

ARTICLE 136

By Edwin Nesortado

The spouses may jointly file a verified petition with the court for the voluntary dissolution of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains, and for the separation of their common properties

All creditors of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership of gains, as well as the personal creditors of the spouse, shall be listed in the petition and notified of the filing thereof. The court shall take measures to protect the creditors and other persons with pecuniary interest, (191a)

VOLUNTARY SEPARATION

1.Both parties agree on the separation of their property regime.

2.Must have court approval before becoming effective.

3.Need not state the reason for conversion/separation. Agreement is enough but if the former is stated, the court must reject if the agreement is against public policy.

4.Must be equally divided unless a different proportion/division had been agreed upon in the marriage settlement or unless there has been a valid waiver of the share which may be made upon judicial separation of property.

5. This agreement shall take effect from the time of judicial order decreeing the separation of the properties and not from the signing of the agreement.

6.When the judgement by way of compromise agreement dissolving the conjugal partnership of spouses has become final and executory the fact that the creditors were not notified will not invalidate such judgement.

7. Such judgement has all the force and effect of any other judgement.

8. Conclusive only upon parties involved and their privies.

9. Not binding to third persons who are not parties to it.

G.R. Nos. 78583-4 March 26, 1990

BENIGNO TODA, JR., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ROSE MARIE TUASON-TODA, respondents.

 REGALADO, J.:

    

  FACTS

In June 1951, Benigno Toda Jr and Rose Marie Tuason-Toda got married and blessed with two children. However, their conjugal union was jeopardized because of individual differences and the alleged Benigno’s infidelity thereby prompting Rose Marie to file for petition for termination of conjugal partnership on the ground of alleged mismanagement and dissipation of conjugal funds against Benigno.

After hearings were held, both parties agreed to a joint petition for judicial approval of the dissolution of their conjugal partnership which was signed on March 30, 1981, embodied a compromise agreement allocating to the spouses their respective shares in the conjugal partnership assets and dismissing the previous appeals made before the CA and SC. Said petition was approved by the Trial Court in its order of June 9,1981. Further, the trial court issued several orders pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of the said compromise agreement.

After hearings were held, both parties agreed to a joint petition for judicial approval of the dissolution of their conjugal partnership which was signed on March 30, 1981, embodied a compromise agreement allocating to the spouses their respective shares in the conjugal partnership assets and dismissing the previous appeals made before the CA and SC. Said petition was approved by the Trial Court in its order of June 9,1981. Further, the trial court issued several orders pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of the said compromise agreement.

  ISSUE

Whether or not the  compromise agreement takes effect on the  time when it was approved by the trial court

HOLDING

YES. The Supreme Court is in agreement with the Court of Appeals that the compromise agreement in this case shall become effective only on June 9, 1981, the date when it was approved by the trial court and not March 30,1981 when it was signed by the parties involved. Under Article 134 of the Family Code: “in the absence of the express declaration in the marriage settlements,  the separation of the property between the spouses during the marriage shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order.” Hence, the separation of property is not effected by mere execution of a contract or agreement of the parties but by the decree by the court approving the same.

Therefore, it becomes effective only upon the judicial approval, without which it is void. Article 137 of this code explicitly provides that the conjugal partnership is dissolved only upon the issuance of a decree of separation of property.

G.R. No. 130623, February 29, 2008

LOREA DE UGALDE, Petitioner

vs

JON DE YSASI, Respondent

CARPIO, J.:

Facts

Lorea De Ugalde and Jon De Ysasi got married both before the church and a judge where they were blessed with a child. During the said ocassions the couple did not execute any ante-nuptial agreement. Sometime in 1957, the couple decided to separate and the respondent contracted another marriage to Victoria Eleanor Smith.

The petitioner filed for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains on the allegation that the respondent and Smith had been acquiring and disposing the real and personal properties to the petitioner’s prejudice as the lawful wife. Further, the petitioner alleged that she had been defrauded of the total gains of their conjugal properties. The respondent contended that both of them already entered in an agreement to dissolve their conjugal
partnership. Pursuant to this, an Amicable Settlement was filed before the CFI of Negros  which was approved by the said court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Trial Court’s Decision which dismissed the action for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains?

HOLDING

No.  Since the marriage of the couples in this case was in February 15, 1951, Civil Code is the applicable law in this instance. Under Article 175, the conjugal partnership of gains ceases during the following circumstances to wit:

1.Upon the death of the other spouse

2.When there is a degree of legal separation

3.When the marriage is annulled

4.In the case of judicial separation of property under Art. 191

The finality of the Amicable Settlement approving the parties’ separation of property  resulted in the termination of the conjugal partnership gains in accordance with Art.175 of the Civil Code. Hence when the trial Court decided on the petition for the said dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains (S.P. No.3330) The conjugal partnership between petitioner and respondent was already dissolved. The amicable settlement had become final between the parties when it was approved by CFI on June 6 ,1961. Its approval resulted in the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between the petitioner and respondent on even date.

 QUESTION:

If the spouses agreed to have a compromise agreement to settle the issue on the separation of the absolute community and conjugal partnership property, when shall the agreement takes effect?

 ANSWER:

The agreement shall take effect on the time when the court issue a decree approving the said agreement and not the time when both of parties signed their agreement.

Article 137

by: Jomely Rose N. Ortiola

Once the separation of property has been decreed, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains shall be liquidated in conformity with this Code.

During the pendency of the proceedings for separation of property, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall pay for the support of the spouses and their children.

LIQUIDATION

• Must be made in conformity with the Family Code.

PROPERTY REGIME	LIQUIDATION PROCESS
Absolute Community	Article 102
Conjugal Partnership	Article 129

• Must be equal, unless:
  • a different proportion or division has been agreed upon in the marriage settlement
  • there has been a valid waiver of such share as provided in the family code

Maquilan vs. Maquilan

G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007

FACTS: Virgilio and Dita Maquilan are spouses who once had a blissful married life and out of which were blessed to have a son. However, their once sugar coated romance turned bitter when Virgilio discovered that Dita was having illicit sexual affair with her paramour, which prompted Virgilio to file a case of adultery against Dita and her paramour. Consequently, both Dita and her paramour were convicted of the crime charged and were sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of prision correccional. Thereafter, Dita, through counsel, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages with the Regional Trial Court, psychological incapacity on the part Virgilio. During the pretrial of the said case, petitioner and private respondent entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.

However, Virgilio claimed that the said agreement was invalid on the grounds that his previous lawyer did not intelligently and judiciously apprise him of the consequential
effects of the Compromise Agreement and that it was made prior to the judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not the partial voluntary separation of property made by the spouses pending the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is valid.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that a partial voluntary separation of property agreed upon by the parties via a Compromise Agreement duly approved by the court prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is valid.

The compromise agreement pertains merely to an agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent to separate their conjugal properties partially without prejudice to the outcome of the pending case of declaration of nullity of marriage.

Article 138

By Joseph Palacol

Art. 138. After dissolution of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership, the provisions on complete separation of property shall apply. (191a)

• The mere filing of the petition to initiate the proceeding shall not automatically result in the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains.
• The finality of the decision of the court decreeing the separation which dissolves the same. This is the only time that the separation of property applies.

Related Articles

SYSTEM OF COMPLETE SEPARATION OF PROPERTY (n)

Art. 212. Should the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that their property relations during marriage shall be based upon the system of complete separation of property, the following provisions shall supplement the marriage settlements.

Art. 213. Separation of property may refer to present or future property or both. It may be total or partial. In the latter case, the property not agreed upon as separate shall pertain to the conjugal partnership of gains.

Art. 214. Each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or her own separate estate, without the consent of the other. All earnings from any profession, business or industry shall likewise belong to each spouse.

Art. 215. Each spouse shall proportionately bear the family expenses.

Articles 139 & 140

By Ed Pangilinan

Article 139: The petition for separation of property and the final judgment granting the same shall be recorded in the proper local civil registries of property.

Article 140: The separation of  property shall not prejudice the rights previously acquired by the creditor.

• Registration of the property in the Local civil registries of property is very important because it will help or give aid to determine which of the property of the spouses are conjugal or separate.

Question:

If Spouse A claimed that a parcel of lot  is her separate property but she was not able it to the Civil Registries of properties. Would the claim of Spouse A is correct that the parcel of land is he separate property?

Answer:

No, the claim of spouse A is not correct. If A did not register it to the proper Civil Registries of property it will belong to the Absolute Community property of the spouses. Proper registration of properties will give aid in the determination in which property regime the said property belongs.

 

Article 141

By Kristine Ramos

The spouses may, in the same proceedings where separation of property was decreed, file a motion in court for a decree reviving the property regime that existed between them before the separation of property in any of the following instances:

1. When the civil interdiction terminates;
2. When the absentee spouse reappears;
3. When the court, being satisfied that the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements will not again abuse that power, authorizes the resumption of said administration;

4. When the spouse who has left the conjugal home without a decree of legal separation resumes common life with the other;
5. When parental authority is judicially restored to the spouse previously deprived thereof;
6. When the spouses who have separated in fact for at least one year, reconcile and resume common life; or
7. When after voluntary dissolution of the absolute community of property or conjugal partnership has been judicially decreed upon the joint petition of the spouses, they agree to the revival of the former property regime. No voluntary separation of property may thereafter be granted.

The revival of the former property regime shall be governed by Article 67. (195a)

Article 141 set out the grounds for decree reviving the proper regime that existed between the spouses before the separation of their property. In reviving the previous property regime, the spouses should file a motion in the same court proceeding where separation was decreed for a decree reviving the property regime that existed between them before the separation of property. The agreement to revive the former property regime shall be governed by Article 67 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Article 142

By JR Tasing

ARTICLE 142

The Administration of all classes of exclusive property of either spouse may be transferred by the court to other spouse.

1. When one spouse becomes the guardian of the other;
2. When one spouse is judicially declared an absentee;
3. When one spouse is sentence to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction; or
4. When one spouse becomes a fugitive from justice or is hiding as an accusedin a criminal case.

In the other spouse is not qualified by reason of incompetence,conflict of interest, or any other just cause,the court shall appoint a suitable person to be the administrator.

 When one spouse becomes the guardian of the other;

GUARDIAN, When a spouse is judicially appointed guardian of his or her spouse,he or she may likewise be constituted as the administrator of the state of the other spouse.This is so because a spouse is already obliged by law to live with and take care of his or her spouse.

One example is, when the wife unable to manage her extra exclusive property due to her mental or any disability, The court will prioritize the other spouse.

OTHER PERSON AS GUARDIAN

If the other spouse is not qualified by reason of incompetence,conflict of interest,or any other just cause,the Court shall appoint a suitable person to be the administrator.

ABSENTEE AND CIVIL INTERDICTION

These two grounds are exactly the same as in article 135(1) and (2). Hence, the explanations in the said article are applicable to Article 142(2) and (3).

ABSENTEE

Example of Absentee is, If one spouse traveled on-board on a ship and it so happened that the ship sank and no news about the location of the passenger, with in two years prior to the incident, the husband may filed or the court may transfer through his petition the exclusive property to the husband.

CIVIL INTERDICTION 

      It is accessory penalty that deprives an offender of his/her rights to manage his property. The person will loss his/her parental authority,guardianship,marital authority and his/her right to manage his/her property.

FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE

       -A fugitive from justice refers to one who having committed or being accused of a crime in one jurisdiction is absent for any reason from that jurisdiction;specifically,one who flees to avoid punishment.

            In case of  Ochida Vs Cabarroguis, The lady lawyer  involved in this case was charged with multiple crimes of estafa in manila and there was 5 pending warrants of arrest against her. She was able  to flee the place which was jurisdiction in her case and so she was considered a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE.

        Hence, because she is considered a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, her spouse may filed petition before the court to transfer the administration of her exclusive properties to him as she is already unable to manage her properties.

QUESTION

In case both spouses Judicially Declared absent and both sentenced to penalty with civil interdiction, who should have authorized to manage the exclusive property of the both spouses?

ANSWER

In case both spouses were judicially declared absent and sentenced to penalty of civil interdiction the court may appoint one of their siblings if any, provided that she/he is suitable enough to manage the property.