Del Val vs Del Val

FACTS:
The plaintiff and the defendant set forth in their pleadings that they are brother and
sister and that they are the only heirs of Gregorio Nacianceno Del Val, who died on
August 4, 1910, intestate. It was stated that the deceased took out a life insurance
for the sum of P40,000.00 and made it payable to the defendant as sole beneficiary;
that the defendant paid the sum of P18,375.20 to redeem certain real estate which
the decedent has sold to third persons. It further appears that the defendant took
possession of most of decedents personal property including the balance on said
insurance policy amounting to P21,634.80. Plaintiff contends that the amount of the
insurance policy belongs to the estate of the deceased; that they are entitled to a
partition of the real and personal property left by the deceased. The trial court
dismissed the action for failure to comply with code civil procedure section 183 in
that it does not contain an adequate description of the property of which partition is
demanded.
ISSUE:
WON the proceeds of the insurance policy be divided among the heirs.
HELD:
No. The proceeds of an insurance policy belong exclusively to the beneficiary and
not to the estate of the person whose life was insured, such proceeds are the
separate and individual property of the beneficiary and not of the heirs of the
person whose life is insured. For the complete and proper determination of the
questions at issue in this case the Supreme Court ruled that the case be returned to
the trial court for settlement of all the questions involved.

Munoz vs Carlos
FACTS:
On April 6, 1989, Carlos mortgaged his wifes inherited property located at
Mandaluyong City to the GSIS to secure a P136,500 housing loan payable within 20
years. Respondent-spouses then constructed a 36sqm two-storey residential house
on the lot. Four years later the property was transferred to Munoz by virtue of a
deed of absolute sale by the spouses for P602,000. In the same year, respondents
filed a complaint for the nullification of the sale claiming that there was no sale but
only mortgaged transaction. It was alleged that the petitioner gave Erlinda a
P200,000 advance to cancel the GSIS mortgage. The petitioner promised to give the
P402000 balance when Erlinda surrenders TCT No. 1427, cancellation of the GSIS
mortgage and affidavit signed by Carlos waiving all his rights to the subject
property. In May 1992, Erlinda surrendered to the petitioner TCT No. 1427 and
Carlos unsigned affidavit; since the affidavit was unsigned the petitioner refused to

give the P402,000 balance. In the following year, they discovered that said property
had been issued in the petitioners name.
ISSUES:
WON the property is paraphernal or conjugal.
WON the property is subject to a mortgage transaction or sale.
HELD:
The property is paraphernal. Under Article 120 of the Family Code, when the cost of
the improvement and any resulting increase in the value are more than the value of
the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property shall belong the to
the conjugal partnership subject to reimbursement. In the present case, Supreme
Court presented that Carlos paid a portion only of the loan through salary
deductions amounting to P60,000 which is considered less than the value of the
GSIS housing loan thus the subject property remains the exclusive property of
Erlinda.