Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS

Improvements on CGP Property: CASE No. 91


Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

G.R. No. L-57499 June 22, 1984


MERCEDES CALIMLIM- CANULLAS, petitioner, vs. HON.
WILLELMO FORTUN, Judge, Court of First instance of
Pangasinan, Branch I, and CORAZON DAGUINES,
respondents.

HELD:

PONENTE: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


FACTS:

Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas and Fernando Canullas


were married in 1962. They had 5 children, and were
living on a house situated on a land inherited by the
Fernando.
1978, Fernando left his family and lived with Corazon
Daguines.
1980, Fernando sold the house and lot to Daguines.
(P2,000.00)
Daguines, unable to take possession of the house and
lot, initiated a complaint on June 19, 1980 for quieting
of title and damages against Mercedes.
Mercedes resisted, claiming that the house and lot were
conjugal properties, and the sale was null and void for
she had not consented thereto.
RTC First Ruling: Daguines was declared as the lawful
owner of the land in question as well as the one-half
(1/2) of the house erected on the said land.
Mercedes prayed for reconsideration.
RTC New Ruling: Daguines was declared as the lawful
owner of the land. House was declared conjugal
property, declaring the sale of the house null and void.

ISSUE:

WON the construction of a conjugal house on the


exclusive property of the husband ipso facto gave the
land the character of conjugal property
WON the sale of the lot together with the house and
improvements
thereon
was
valid
under
the
circumstances surrounding the transaction

Yes. Both (land and building) belong to the conjugal


partnership but the conjugal partnership is indebted to
the husband for the value of the land. The spouse
owning the lot becomes a creditor of the conjugal
partnership for the value of the lot, which value would
be reimbursed at the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership. Fernando could not have alienated the
house and lot to Daguines since Mercedes had not
given her consent to said sale. (Art. 158 of Civil Code:
Buildings constructed at the expense of the partnership
during the marriage on land belonging to one of the
spouses also pertain to partnership, but the value of
the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns
the same.)
No. The contract of sale was null and void for
being contrary to morals and public policy. The
sale was made by a husband in favor of a
concubine after he had abandoned his family and left
the conjugal home where his wife and children lived
and from whence they derived their support. That sale
was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic
social institution which public policy cherishes and
protects. The law emphatically prohibits the
spouses from selling property to each other
subject
to
certain
exceptions.
Similarly,
donations between spouses during marriage are
prohibited. And this is so because if transfers or con
conveyances between spouses were allowed during
marriage, that would destroy the system of conjugal
partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also
designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by
one spouse over the other, as well as to protect the
institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of

family law. The prohibitions apply to a couple living as


husband and wife without benefit of marriage,
otherwise, "the condition of those who incurred guilt
would turn out to be better than those in legal union."
Those provisions are dictated by public interest and
their criterion must be imposed upon the will of the
parties.

thereon was declared under Tax No. 06022 in the name


of Ramon C. Ong and Teodora B. Ong
It was the
contention of the Ramon that since the surname "Ong"
(the surname of the husband Ramon C. Ong) was
carried by Teodora in the aforesaid declaration, that
indicates that the subject property was acquired during
the marriage. By reason thereof, the property in dispute
is presumed to be owned jointly by both spouses.
ISSUE: WON the property in dispute is conjugal

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS


Improvements on CGP Property: CASE No. 92
Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

HELD: No, it is paraphernal (property over which the wife has


complete control; not part of the wifes dowry). (J. MelencioHerrera; Former Associate Justice that concurred in the case
at bar, now chairman of this division, took no part)

RAMON C. ONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,


FRANCISCO BOIX and ARSENIO CAMINO AS DEPUTY
SHERIFF OF CAMARINES NORTE, respondents.
PONENTE: PARAS, J.:
FACTS:

Ramon Ong filed a complaint for the annulment of


auction sale of a parcel of land, allegedly owned
conjugally by the plaintiff and his former wife Teodora
Ong, in favor of Francisco Boix.
Auction sale was made due to failure of the Teodora to
pay her loan obtained from Francisco Boix who lent her
money in relation to her own logging business in
Camarines Sur. (P2,827.83)
Ramon argued that the subject property is really
conjugal which the wife could not legally bind, and
considering that the indebtedness was contracted by
the wife only, the levy of the subject property not
owned exclusively by the wife owned jointly with the
husband is improper.
Ramon based his argument on the fact that the
property was "declared, under Tax No. 05378, in the
name of Teodora B. Ong while the house erected

The mere use of the surname of the husband in the tax


declaration of the subject property is not sufficient
proof that said property was acquired during the
marriage and is therefore conjugal. It is undisputed that
the subject parcel was declared solely in the wife's
name, but the house built thereon was declared in the
name of the spouses. (land-paraphernal, houseconjugal)
It was correctly pointed out by the CA, the party who
invokes the presumption that all property of the
marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership
(Art. 160, New Civil Code) must first prove that the
property was acquired during the marriage.
o Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a
condition sine qua non for the operation of the
presumption
in
favor
of
the
conjugal
partnership.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
property in dispute is conjugal, the same may still be
held liable for the debts of the wife in this case.
Under Art. 117 of the Civil Code, the wife may engage
in
business
although the husband may object (but
subject to certain conditions).
o It is clear from the records that the wife was
engaged in the logging business with the
husband's knowledge and apparently without

any objection on his part. The acts of the


husband
show
that
he
gave
his implied consent to the wife's
engagement in business.
After all, whatever

profits are earned by the wife from her business


goes to the conjugal partnership. (J. MelencioHerrera, concurring opinion, CA)