Article 147

By Karl Dane Ylagan

When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by rules on co-ownership.

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 been owned by them in equal shares. For the purpose of this article, 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 if the former’s effort 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 the termination of their cohabitation.     When only one of the parties to avoid marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-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 respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong the innocent party. In all cases the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of cohabitation. Informal civil relationship- no technical marital partnership between person living as husband and wife without being lawfully married or under a void marriage, nevertheless there is an informal civil relationship which entitles the parties to some rights.     Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the other.

Qualifications under 147

 1 capacitated to marry each other

2 live exclusively with each other as husband and wife

3 be without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage

            Void marriages refers to article 36, 44, 53 and void marriages where there is absence of consent, authority of the solemnizing officer, a valid marriage license, a marriage ceremony as provided for in article 4 of the family code .

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP UNDER ARTICLE 147 IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Salaries and wages shall be owned by them in equal shares; and
2. Property acquired by either of the parties exclusively by his or by her own fund belongs to such party provided that there is proof that he or she acquired it by exclusive funds;
3. Property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. Consequently, either spouse may alienate in favor of the other his or her share in the property;
4. Property acquired while they live 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 if the former’s efforts consisted In the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
5. The fruits of the couple’s separate property are not included in the co-ownership.
6. Property acquired by any of the parties after separation shall be exclusively owned by the party who acquired it
7. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts intervivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common without the consent of the other until after termination of their cohabitation. However, either spouse may alienate in favor of the other his or her share in the property co-owned. But no one can donate or waive any interest in the co-ownership that would constitute an indirect or direct grant of gratuitous advantage to the other which is void pursuant to article 87;
8. When only one of the parties to avoid marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be 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 respective surviving descendant, in the absence of descendant such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.

Article 148

By Rossville “Aeron” B. Violanta

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article. 

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.

The parties may deemed to be co-owner of a property acquired during the cohabitation only upon proof that each made an actual contribution to its acquisition. Without proof of actual contribution, a co owner under art. 148 cannot arise.

Relationships contemplated:

1. not capacitated to marry
2. adulterous marriage even if it occurred prior to the effectivity of the Family Code
3. bigamous or polygamous marriage
4. incestuous void marriages under art. 37
5. void marriages by reason of public policy (art. 38)

Structure of the Property:

1. salaries and wages are separately owned and if any of the parties is married, it shall form part of the property of such legitimate marriage
2. property acquired solely by funds of any of the parties shall belong to that party
3. only properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions
4. the respective shares over properties owned in common are presumed to be equal. Proof is needed to show their contribution and respective shares are not equal. Without proof, there can be no presumption of co-ownership and equal sharing
5. the rule and presumption mentioned above shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit
6. if one, who is not validly married, acted in bad faith his/her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of art. 147. This shall also apply even if both acted in bad faith

AGAPAY vs. PALANG

G.R. No. 116668

July 28, 1997

Facts:

Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage with Carlina on July 16,1949. A few months after the wedding, in October 1949, he left for work in Hawaii. Miguel and Carlina’s only child, Herminia Palang, was born on May 12, 1950. When he returned for good in 1972, Miguel refused to stay with Carlina but stayed alone in a house in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan.

On July 15, 1973, 63 yr old Miguel contracted with second marriage with 19 yr old Erlinda Agapay. Two months earlier, Miguel and Erlinda jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located at San Felipe, Binalonan, Pangasinan. A house and lot in Binalonan, Pangasinan was also purchased by Erlinda as sole vendee. On October 1975, Miguel and Cornelia Palang executed a deed of donation as a form of compromise agreement. The parties agreed to donate their conjugal property to their only child, Herminia Palang. Miguel and Erlinda had a son, Kristopher A. Palang.

In 1979, Miguel and Erlinda were convicted of concubinage upon Carlina’s complaint. Two years later, Miguel died. On July 11, 1979, Carlina Palang and her daughter Herminia filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession of the Riceland and house and lot both located at Binalonan, Pangasinan allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda Agapay. The RTC dismissed the case and ruled in favour of Agapay. On appeal, the respondent court reversed the trial court’s decision and declared Carlina and Herminia Palang the owners of the properties in question.

ISSUE: Who owns the riceland?

HELD:

The sale of the riceland on May 17, 1973, was made in favor of Miguel and Erlinda. The provision of law applicable here is Article 148 of the Family Code providing for cases of cohabitation when a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. While Miguel and Erlinda contracted marriage on July 15, 1973, said union was patently void because the earlier marriage of Miguel and Carlina was still susbsisting and unaffected by the latter’s de facto separation.

Under Article 148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. It must be stressed that actual contribution is required by this provision, in contrast to Article 147 which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household, are regarded ascontributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry.  If the actual contribution of the party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

Erlinda tried to establish by her testimony that she is engaged in the business of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store. Worth noting is the fact that on the date of conveyance, May 17, 1973, she was only around 22 years of age and Miguel was already 64 and a pensioner of the U.S. Government. Considering her youthfulness, it is unrealistic to conclude that in 1973 she contributed P3,750.00 as her share in the purchase price of subject property, there being no proof of the same.

Since Erlinda failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the riceland, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Consequently, the riceland should revert to the conjugal partnership property of Miguel and Carlina.

___________________________

A is a cashier and B is an engineer, they live together without the benefit of marriage. B is legally married to C. When B died, A claim that she was entitled to all the real property they bought when they were living together. Is A contention correct?

No, A contention is incorrect

Under the Art. 148 of the Family Code “In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule apply and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidence of credit.

In the case at bar, A is a cashier and B is an engineer it is very clear that through their income most of the real property were sold by B.Since A failed to prove that she contributed money to the real property, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership with B over the same. Consequently, the real property should revert to the conjugal partnership property of B and C.