RAVINA v VILLA ABRILLE Spouses Mary Ann and Pedro Villa Abrille, with 4 kids Ac quired a 555sqm lot

lot at Kamuning St., Davao w/ TCT Adjacent to a lot in Pedros namewhenhe wasstillsingle Thru DBP loan, they built house on both lots, improvements: Poultry house and an annex 1991 Pedro got a mistress and neglected his family Pedro offered to sell the house and 2 lots to Ravinas Though w/o Mary Anns consent, house was sold anyway, Deed of Sale w/o Mary Anns signature Pedro + CAFGU = moved belongings When Mary Ann and daughter arrived, they were barred from entering They sought help from Talomo Police, but refused to intervene, one child even flunked out of school Pedro declared that it was built with own money RTC: favored Mary Ann , and damages CA: valid Pedros lot 26471 , void conjgl 88674 ISSUE: 1 Is 88674 is exclusive or conjugal 2 Is Pedros sale w/o Mary Anns consent valid Pedro says that he acquired thru barter from sister Carmelita, but then Pedro sold the lot to one Francisca Ting and purchased Carmelitas property using proceeds of the sale 1 NO. ART 160 All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. No evidence was adduced to show that the prop was acquired through exchange or barter. The presumption of the conjugal nature subsists in the absence of clear, evidence to overcome said presumption Also, such sale concluded after the effectivity of the Family Code on 8/2/88 is governed by Art 124: Administration and enjoyment shall belong to both spouses jointly.. (a) without the consent of both the husband and the wife, or (b) in case of one spouses inability, the authority of the court. One must show that he inquired into the latters capacity to sell; to establish himself as a buyer for value in good faith. Thus VOIDABLE. However, court rules that petitioners cannot claim reimbursements for improvements they introduced after their G.F had ceased.

As Patrocinia Ravina made improvements and renovations at the time the complaint was filed, Article 449 applies: (h)e who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. AGGABAO v PARULAN 2 parcels of land at BF Homes Pque registered under Dionisio and Maria Elena Parulan 1991 broker Atanacio offered property to Aggabaos. But though rundown, she was able to sell TCT, tax declarations, SPA of Parulan shown Aggabaos paid 20k as earnest money; they stipulated to pay addtl 130k , pay balance of bank loan of respondents worth 650k, and make final payment once property is turned over, - 700k Petitioners went to RD and Assessors Ofc to verify TCTs They discovered it was encumbered to Banco Filipino, but already fully paid. Loan thru SPA (dio -> maria); Maria Elena mortgaged to loan 500k from LBR bank They went to Los Banos Rural Bank, Atty Zarate (banks legal counsel) told them bank had asked for court order because lot was conjugal property They paid 130+650, which released duplicate TCT 63377 Petitioners delivered final amount of 700K, then Maria Elena executed a deed of absolute sale. She did not turn over TCT duplicate of 63376, claimed that a relative in HK has it, assured one week turnover But it was w/ Atty Parulan, Dionisios brother. They met at Manila Pen, and atty demanded 800k in exchange; pegged value at 1.5M They offered 250k, declined Dionisio = cancel, Petitioners = specific performance RTC = favored Parulan, sale void Declared that Ma. Elenas SPA = forgery. Petitioners = not in good faith CA = affirmed, denied MFR SC = AFFIRMED Art 124. Also, 256 = provisions of Family Code may apply retroactively, if no vested rights are impaired Nonetheless, we stress that the power of administration does not include acts of disposition or encumbrance, which are acts of strict ownership. Authority to dispose cannot proceed from an authority to administer ESTRANGED! Petitioners miss the point. They took SPA on its face; paid 700K without TCT copy. DENIED

MEDINA v CIR and CTA Antonio Medina married Antonia Rodriguez on 5/1944 Before 1946, they had no property nor business Later however, they acquired forest, concessions in San Mariano and Palanan, ISABELA From 1946-48, logs were sold in Manila thru his agent Mariano Osorio. In 1949, wife took business as a lumber dealer, and up to 1952, petitioner sold to her almost all logs in his San Mariano concession Wife would then sell in Manila the logs bought from her husband thru the same agent Proceeds either received, or deposited in PNB curnt acct On suspicion of skirting 1490 thus null and void, CIR considered sales by wife as petitioners original sales taxable under Sec 186 of the NIRC o Called for payment of deficiencies 4k Petitioner protested, Asked for reconsideration He revealed for the first time the existence of an alleged premarital agreement of CSP, contended that 1946-52 had already prescribed. CIR modified statement 3.3k Petitioner appealed to CTA, which affirmed (a) no premarital agreement (b)sales wre simulated/fict Document LOST on acct of the WAR allegedly RD Day Book did not show document Best evidence rule = secondary evidence given nocred Circumstantial evidence is against petitioners claim Contracts violative of 1490 = NULL AND VOID!

Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas v Hon. Fortun & Daguines Mercedes and Fernando were married on Dec 1962, had 5 children. Lived in Bacabac Pangasinan 891sqm After Fernandos father died, he inherited the LAND In 1978, he abandoned his family and lived with Corazon Daguines; during pendency of this appeal, they were convicted of concubinage = judgment final Fernando sold HOUSE and LOT to DAGUINES for 2,000 Unable to take possession, Daguines filed a complaint for quieting of title against Mercedes Mercedes resisted: coconut trees, house, conjugal property; NO CONSENT to sale RTC: DAGUINES as lawful owner of land, of house RECON: Mercedes owns land, 10 coconut trees; NULL AND VOID the sale of conjugal house and 3 trees ISSUE: w/ construction of a conjugal house on the exclusive property of the husband gave the land the character of conjugal property HELD: ART 158 CC Buildings constructed at the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same. Padilla v Paterno: reimbursed after liquidation of the conjugal partnership The foregoing premises considered, it follows that FERNANDO could not have alienated the house and lot to DAGUINES since MERCEDES had not given her consent to said sale. Art. 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a donation between the spouses during the marriage, policy considerations of the most exigent character as wen as the dictates of morality require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship.