ILUSORIO v BILDNER

FACTS: Wife filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and for grant of visitation rights to her
husband who did not anymore reside live with her. She also filed for authorization to be
the sole administrator of their properties stating that Atty. Potenciano was already
incapacitated due to his frail health. She based her petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus on
Art 68 of the FC which states that: The Husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observe mutual love, respect, fidelity and render mutual help and support.
ISSUE: Can the court compel Atty. Potenciano to live with his wife Erlinda?
HELD: No. The sanction of Art 68 is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband
and wife and not any legal mandate or court order to enforce consortium
ARCABA v TABANCURA
FACTS: Francisco Comille was a widower, Cirilia his caregiver who his niece Leticia
claims is also his lover. Before Francisco died, he donated part of the house and lot to
Cirilia. His nieces and his heirs b intestate succession allege that Cirilia is Franciscos
common-law wife and therefore the dnation was void by virtue of Art 87 of the FC.
ISSUE: WON the donation was valid?
HELD: No. the donation was VOID. The prohibition on donations between husband and
wife during marriage also applies to common-law spouses during cohabitation. Since it
was sufficiently proven that Cirilia was indeed Franciscos lover, the donation is void.
Cohabitation is a public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital relation and
dwelling together as husband and wife, thereby holding themselves out to the public as
such.
MUNOZ, JR. v CARLOS
FACTS: A residential lot was inherited by Erlinda from her parents and was registered in
the name of Erlinda Ramirez married to Eliseo Carlos. Erlinda executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale which transferred the tittle to petitioner Francisco Munos. Respondents
asked for the nullification of the deed alleging that there was no sale but only a
mortgage and showed that the signature of Eliseo was forged therefore no consent.
Petitioner presented evidence of the paraphernal nature of the lot and claimed that
Eliseos signature is immaterial thus, the sale is valid.
ISSUE: WON the subject lot is conjugal
HELD: No. Subject lot is the exclusive or paraphernal property of Erlinda whch she can
dispose of or encumber without the consent of Eliseo, therefore the fact that his
signature was forged is immaterial because it was not required for the sale to be valid.
As a general rule, properties acquired during marriage is presumed to be part of
the conjugal partnership whether the acquisition appears to have been made,
contracted, or registered in the name of one or both spouses, unless contrary is proved.

AYALA INVESTMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP v CA

FACTS: Mr. Ching signed as a surety of a loan obtained by Philippine Blooming Mills from
AIDC. PBM failed to pay its load. AIDC filed a case for collection for sum of money against
PBM and Ching, RTC issued a writ of execution upon SPS Chings 3 conjugal properties.
Private respondents filed a case of injunction alleging that judgment cannot be enforced
against the CP levied on the ground that the subject loan did not redound to the benefit
of the CP.
ISSUE: WON the CP of SPS Ching can be held liable for the loan obtained by PBM where
husband Ching signed as a surety?

HELD: No. Art 121 of the FC provides that debts incurred before or during marriage shall
only be charged against the CP in so far as it redounded to the benefit of the family.
Here, the property in dispute involves a family home. The loan obtained was a corporate
one, and not a personal loan of Mr. Ching. Signing as a surety is not an exercise of an
industry or profession nor an act of administration for the benefit of the family.
CHING v CA
FACTS: PBM obtained a loan from Allied Banking Corp. Alfredo Ching and 2 others bound
themselvesto jointly and severally guarantee the payment of such loans. PBMCI
defaulted in the payment. The sheriff of the TC levied on attachment 100,000 common
shares of City Corp Stocks in the name of Alfredo Ching. Wife Ching filed a motion to set
aside levy on attachment alleging that the shares were acquired by her and her husband
during their marriage out of their conjugal funds, and that the loan obtained by PBMCI
did not redound to the benefit of the family.
ISSUE: WON the CP is liable for the debt obtained by PBMC
HELD: NO. For the Co to be liable for a liability that should pertain to the husband
alone, there must be a showing that some advantage accrued to the spouses. Private
respondent failed to prove that the conjugal partnership was benefited by the husbands
act of executing a continuing guaranty and suretyship agreement with the respondent
and in behalf of PBMCI. Only when the husband borrows money for the exercise of his
career, business and profession can the CP be liable.

FRANCISCO v GONZALES
FACTS: Michele Francisco and Cleodualdo Franciscos marriage was declared a nullity
and both entered into a compromise agreement and it was stipulated that the Conjugal
Home (Taal Property) was transferred by way of deed of donation to their daughters.
Michele was living with Matrai when SPS Gonzales filed a case against them for unpaid
rentals and issued a notice of sale by execution on the Taal Property.
The grandmother of the children filed with the RTC an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and a
Very Urgent Motion to Stop Sale but was denied. Petitioners on review argued that the
obligation of Michele did not redound to the benefit of the family.
ISSUE: WON the Taal Property may be held liable
HELD: No. Michele was already living with Matrai when she rented the house therefore it
was for her and Matrais benefit. By no stretch of imagination can it be concluded that
said debt was incurred for the benefit of the CP or that some advantage accrued to the
welfare of the family.

BUADO v NICOL
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
PANA v HEIRS OF JUANITE
FACTS: Melecia Pana was held guilty of murder and was ordered to pay the heirs of
Juanite civil indemnity and moral damages. A notice of levy and notice of sale on
execution against Panas property was issued. SPS Pana filed a motion to quash the writ
of execution claiming that the levied properties were conjugal properties and not
paraphernal assets of Melecia.
ISSUE: WON the conjugal properties can be levied and executed upon for the
satisfaction of Melecias civil liability?
HELD: YES. The civil liability may be enforced against the conjugal properties by virtue
of Art 122 if all the liabilities under art 121 have been covered. No prior liquidation is
required and it is not unfair since it is provided under Art 122 that at the time of
liquidation of the partnership, such offending spouse shall be charged for what has been
paid for the purposes mentioned in Art 121.
ISSUE 2: Heirs of Juanite contended that the property regime of Pana was converted
into ACP after the effectivity of the FC.

HELD: False. The SC denied that contention, stating that by virtue of the
immutability of the property regime during marriage, there are only five ways for

modification of the property regime. If not found in the enumeration, it is not allowed.
Post-marriage modification of such settlements can take place only where:
(a) the absolute community or conjugal partnership was dissolved and liquidated upon a decree
of legal separation;
(b) the spouses who were legally separated reconciled and agreed to revive their former property
regime;
(c) judicial separation of property had been had on the ground that a spouse abandons the other
without just cause or fails to comply with his obligations to the family;
(d) there was judicial separation of property under Article 135;
(e) the spouses jointly filed a petition for the voluntary dissolution of their absolute community or
conjugal partnership of gains. None of these circumstances exists in the case of Efren and
Melecia.

BA FINANCE v CA
FACTS: Agusto Yulo obtained a Loan from BA finance secured by a promissory note
signed by Yulo as representative of A&L Industries and presented an alleged special
power of Atty executed by his wife Lily which purportedly authorized the husband to
procure the loan and sign the promissory note. When the obligation became
demandable, Agusto failed to pay the same.
BA Finances petition for issuing a writ of attachment and was issued by the TC.
Lily filed her answer alleging that although Yulo is her husband, the former had
abandoned her and their 5 chidren, five months before filing the complaint and that they
were already separated when the promissory note was executed.
ISSUE: WON A&L Industries can be held liable for the obligations contracted by the
husband as the admninstrator?
HELD:
A&L Industries is a single-proprietorship, whose registered owner was Lily.
While it is true that the property was established and its assets were acquired during the
marriage thus it gives rise to the presumption that it belongs to the CP, the obligation
contracted by Yulo must have redounded to the benefit of the family for it to be liable.
Agusto contracted the obligation for his own benefit because at the time he incurred
such obligation, he had already abandoned his family
HEIRS OF AYUSTE v CA (NCC VOIDABLE)
FACTS: Rafael Ayuste was married to Christina. On 1987, Rafael executed a deed of
absolute sale without Christinas knowledge in favor or Malabonga with the forged
signature of Chirstina. After Rafaels death, Chirstina learned about the sale and files a
complaint for annulment of the sale and cancellation of tct. CA said that Christinas
petition was barred by laches because of hr failure to file it during the existence of their
marriage.
ISSUE: WON Heirs of Ayuste are entitled to the annulment of the contract of sale
entered into by Rafael
HELD: No. Art 173 of NCC states that The wife may, during the marriage and within ten
years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulmet of any contract of
the husband enterend into without her consent. Shouldthe wife fail to exercise this right,

she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage may demand value of property
fraudulently alienated by the husband.