Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Elena Muller vs Helmut Muller

Maquilan vs Maquilan

Willem Beumer vs Avelina Amores

Helmut, german national married Elena in Germany Helmut bought a lot in Antipolo and constructed a house thereon The property was registered in the name of Elena They separated Helmut filed a petition for separation of properties Praying for the reimbursement and not the transfer of ownership since he is aware that aliens are prohibited from acquiring private lands Funds paid by him for the property were in consideration of his marriage to Elena The funds were given to her in trust and equity demands that he should be reimbursed of his personal funds Petitoner and respondent had a blissful marriage and had a son Petitioner filed a case of adultery against resp. and his paramour Resp. filed a petition to declare of nullity of marriage on the ground of PI Also filed a dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership of gains They had a compromise agreement Petitioner filed an Omnibus motion praying for the repudiation of the compromise agreement on the grounds that the previous lawyer did not intelligently tell him the consequential effects of the compromise agreement TC denied the Omnibus motion Petitioner, dutch national and respondent, Filipina got married After several yrs, RTC declared the nullity of their marriage on the basis of the petitioners PI Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership praying for the distribution of properties acquired during the marriage( 4 lots acquired by purchase and 2 lots by inheritance) Respondent argued that she used her own personal money to purchase the lots Petitioner testified that the properties were acquired with the money he received from the Dutch govt as his disability benefit

Respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition He who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands To allow reimbursement would permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a property that he is not allowed to own Helmuts disqualification from owning lands in the Phil is absolute. Not even and ownership of trust is allowed No trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of fraud The court decreed the separation of property between the spouses and partition of personal properties located in the Phil only

Petitioner contends that the compromise agreement is void because resp. was convicted of adultery Court held that the conviction of adultery does not carry with it the accessory of civil interdiction The comp. agree. which was judicially approved is a separation of property allowed under the law The appearance of the Solicitor gen. or public prosecutor is mandatory but it does not nullify the comp. agree. Mistake or vitiation of consent claimed by the petitioner as his basis for repudiating the settlement, could hardly be said to be evident Comp. Agree. is valid w/out prejudice to the rights of the creditors and other persons with pecuniary interest in the properties of the conjugal partnership of gains

The principle is that he who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands Meaning he who has done inequity shall not be accorded equity The court on the grounds of equity cannot grant reimbursement to petitioner since he acquired no right whatsoever over the subject properties by virtue of its unconstitutional purchase One cannot salvage any rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowingly entered into The court cannot also grant for reimbursement on the basis of unjust enrichment

Art. 147 Their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares The property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the 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 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 formers 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 the cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez married with 5 children Valdes filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of PI Petition was granted by the RTC The 3 older children were given the choice of which parent they wish to stay The 2 younger children remained in the custody of Gomez Gomez sought clarification on the portion directing compliance with Art 50-52, asserting that the FC constrained no provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common prop. In unions w/out marriage TC clarified that the provisions of Art 102 and 129 finds no application since those refers to the procedure for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership prop. and the absolute comm. prop. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation are governed by the provisions of Art 147 or 148 Capacitated refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage and not under any impediments Property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules of co-ownership Any property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed jointly if his efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household When the common-law spouses suffer from a legal impediment to marry or when they do not live exclusively with each other, only the property acquired by both of them through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned in common and in proportion to their respective contributions In case marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime shall be governed by the rules of co-ownership Properties to be distributed were found to have been acquired during the union of the parties so it shall be covered by the co-ownership The liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties owned by the parties should be on the basis of co-ownership and not the conj. Part. Of gains

Valdes vs RTC branch 102, QC

Buenaventura vs CA

Noel and Isabel got married Marriage was declared void by reason of noels PI Court ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conj. Part. Where the wife was given of noels retirement benefits with 12% int and of his outstanding shares of stocks with Manila Memorial park and the provident group of companies Noel opposed the sharing claiming that the retirement benefits are gratuitous in nature and therefore his exclusive property

John Abing vs Juliet Waeyan

He acquired shares of stocks before the marriage and therefore also his exclusive property Juliet and John decided to live together as husband and wife w/out the benefit of marriage During cohabitation, they purchased a house Then they partitioned their properties and executed a MOA that was unsigned by the parties but signed by their witnesses It was agreed that she shall live in the dwelling and Juliet would pay him the amount representing Johns share in the properties She failed to pay the balance John filed an ejectment suit against Juliet John claimed that he alone spent for the construction of the annex using his own funds, money he borrowed from his relatives Resp. Nicholson Pascual and Florencia Nevalga were married During the union, florencia bought a lot in Makati City Florencia filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of PI RTC QC declared the marriage null and void RTC ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the ex-spouses conj. Part. Of gains Florencia, together with spouses Oliveros obtained a P58M loan from Metrobank To secure the obligation, Florencia executed several real estate including the lot covered by the Transfer Certificate of title They failed to pay, Metrobank initated foreclosure proceedings Nicholson filed a complaint to declare the nullity of the mortgage of the disputed property Nicholson allege that the property is still conjugal property was mortgaged without his consent Alain Dino and Caridad Dino started living together in 1984, then separated after 10 yrs and after 2 years they decided to live together again and they got married Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of PI Respondent filed a petition for divorce or dissolution of her marriage with petitioner and was granted by the Superior Court of California

Metrobank vs Pascual

John failed to reveal how much he spent, did not give the names of the relatives he borrowed from and the amount Tax declarations do not prove ownership but at best a claim for ownership Any property acquired by the common-law spouses during the period of cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained thru their joint efforts, work or industry and is owned by them in equal shares Property relations is governed by rules of co-ownership Since she is a co-owner of the structure, she may not be ejected from the house A co-owner may bring an action for ejectment against a coowner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of a common property SC held that the disputed property is conjugal Florencia constituted a mortgage on the disputed lot less than 2 yrs after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership but before the liquidation of the partnership Florencia had the right to mortgage or sell her undivided interest in the disputed property even w/out the consent of Nicholson Metrobank is limited only to the undivided portion owned by Florencia

Dino vs Dino

What governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by petitioner and respondent are the rules of co-ownership. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage

Respondent married Manuel Alcantara TC rendered a judgment dissolving the regime of absolute comm.. of prop. Petitoner filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the abs. comm.. prop. TC ruled that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued after the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties properties

Agapay vs Palang

Tumlos vs Fernandez

Miguel Palang married private respondent Carlina Vallesterol and had one child, Herminia Miguel and petitioner Erlinda Agapay jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land Miguel, 63 contracted and 2nd marriage with Erlinda, 19 They purchased a house and lot issued in the name of Erlinda They had a son Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise agreement wherein they agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of six parcels of land to their child, Hermania When Miguel died, Carlina and Hermania instituted an action for recovery of ownership and possession They sought to get back the Riceland and the house and lot purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner Erlinda contended that she already gave her half of the Riceland to their son and the house and lot is her sole property, having bought it with her own money Petitioner Guillerma Tumlos was plaintiff in an action for abetment over an apartment owned by respondent spouses Mario and Lourdes Fernandez Petitioner occupied for 6 yrs without having paid rentals Petitioner argues that she is a co-owner of the premises She alleged that she had a relationship with Mario and acquired the property That they lived together in the apt with their 2 children for 10 yrs and that she administered the property by collecting rentals from the lessees of the other apartments Petitioner Eustaquio Mallilin, Jr and Respondent Elvira Castillo, both are married and with children, but they are separated from their respective spouses, cohabited while their respective marriages still subsist. During their union, they set up a corporation, with petitioner as president and chairman of the BOD and respondent as VP and treasurer They acquired properties solely in respondents name The couple separated Petitioner demanded his share in the properties

Art.148 providing for cases of cohabitation when a man and woman who are not capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage under a void marriage 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 proportion to their respective contributions Erlinda failed to establish that she actually contributed money to buy the Riceland and since she was only 20 yrs old Erlinda failed to prove her actual contribution, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel It should belong to the conjugal partnership property of Miguel and Carlina The transaction was a donation by Miguel to Erlinda, but was void and inexistent because it was made between persons guilty of adultery and concubinage at the time of the donation The cohabitation and the acquisition of the property occurred before the effectivity of the FC, but can be applied retroactively if it does not prejudice acquired or vested rights Petitioner fails to present any evidence that she had made an actual contribution to purchase the property Her claim of having administered the property during the cohabitation is unsubstantiated The administration of the property amounts to a contribution in its acquisition The property in question belongs to the conjugal partnership of respondents Art. 148 provides for a limited co-ownership in cases where the parties in union are incapacitated to marry each other If properties acquired by them through their joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common proportions to their contributions which, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is presumed equal All the properties acquired out of their actual joint contributions of money, property or industry shall constitute co-ownership

Mallilin, Jr vs Castillo

Atienza vs De Castro Borromeo vs Descallar

Saguid vs CA

Respondent refused claiming that they were entirely out of her own money and registered solely in her name Petitoner filed a complaint for partition and payment of coownership share Respondent filed a Motion for summary Judgement Private respondent Gina Rey was already married, but separated in fact from her husband Petitioner Jacinto Saguid and respondent decided to cohabit as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage After 9 yrs, the couple decided to separate Gina filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal property with receivership She prayed that she be declared the sole owner of the personal properties and be reimbursed for the construction of the house Both parties claim that the money used to purchase the properties came partly from their joint account in the bank Petitoner Lupo Atienza, president and GM if Enrico Shipping Corp and Eurasian Maritime Corp, hired respondent Yolanda De Castro as accountant Lupo was already married, but he and Yolanda lived together they had 2 children Lupo filed a complaint for the judicial partition between them of a parcel of land with improvement Lupo alleged that the property was acquired during his union with Yolanda as common-law husband and wife so the property is co-owned by them Lupo averred that the property was acquired by Yolanda using his exclusive funds Yolanda insisted that she brought the property thru her own savings and earnings as a businesswoman Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, met respondent Antonietta Descallar, a Filipina and was already married The two cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage They acquired some real properties The deed of sale of the properties were placed in the name of both Jambrich and Descallar as buyers, but were registered under the name of Descallar alone as Jambrich is disqualified to own real properties in the country The funds used to buy the property came solely from Jambrich

Under Art.148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties though their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common proportion to their respective contributions. Proof of actual contribution is required Private respondent did not specify the extent of her contribution for the completion of the house The personal properties wherein both parties contributed in their joint deposit account, there is no sufficient proof of the exact amount of their respective share In the absence of the proof of extent of the parties respective contribution, their share shall be presumed equal The subject property is solely owned by Yolanda Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property or industry. Absent of proof, their contributions and corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal Petitioners claim of co-ownership is without basis because he failed to substantiate his alleged contribution in the purchase and the trail of documents pertaining to the purchase as evidentiary proof redounds to the benefit of the respondent There can be no co-ownership when Yolanda sufficiently established that she derived the funds used to purchase the property from her earnings In an adulterous relationship, no co-ownership exists between the parties It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it

They separated, respondent found a new boyfriend while Jambrich lived with another woman Jambrich purchased an engine and accessories for his boat from petitioner Camilo Borromeo To pay his debts, he sold his rights and interests in the properties to petitioner When petitioner sought to register the deed of assignment, he discovered that the titles to the 3 lots have been transferred in the name of the respondent and the subject property has been mortgaged Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for recovery of real property