Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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 commonlaw 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 commonlaw 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.
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.
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
PELAYO v PEREZ
FACTS: David Pelayo sold to Melki perez aparcel of land. The wife,; Lorenza Pelayo and another witnessed the execution of the deed.
SPS Pelayo contend that the sale was void absent the signature of Lorenza in the deed.
ISSUE: Is the sale null and void for lack of marital consent?
HELD: Applying the provisions on sale in general, sale being a consensual contract is perfected by mere consent; consent may be
given expressly or impliedly so there is this perfection of the contract even if the consent of the husband or the wife is given orally or
by acts of the parties agreeing to the contract. Also, under the CC, if indeed Lorenza did not consent to the conveyance, the sale
would be merely voidable not void following art 173. The contract iv valid until the court annuls the same.