Article 128 Enriquez v Court of Appeals p.

548 Doctrine: Article 128 and 101 can bring this action to protect her interest, and her right thereto exists even before the liquidation or dissolution of the conjugal partnership og gains or the absolute community of property. Facts: 1. Petitioner Crescencio Enriquez is the father of his co-petitioner Sebastian Enriquez. On the other hand, private respondent Adalia Enriquez is the wife of Sebastian. 2. They were married in February 1957. For reasons not disclosed in the record, they separated in 1970, Adalia claimed that she was abandoned by Sebastian. 3. The land in question was originally 160 square meters with a building thereon. 4. The building was constructed, according to Crescencio, from money borrowed by him from the Philippine National Bank and later on the GSIS. 5. On the other hand, Adalia claimed that in 1956, before their marriage, Sebastian borrowed from her, out of her income as employee of PCAV and later on in the "buy and sell" business. 6. It was during their marriage that they acquired the property in issue, but because Sebastian, according to her, was involved in a litigation, she agreed to his suggestion that the title be issued in the name of Crescencio who was made to appear as the vendee in the deed of sale. 7. The Court of Appeals declared private respondent Adalia to be the co-owner of the property in question. 8. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON CA erred in declaring Adalia as co-owner of the property. Held: No. CAs decision is upheld. She has established that her husband defendant Sebastian, had abandoned her for over a year before the filing of the complaint and that said defendant had abused the powers of administration conniving with their trustee defendant Crescencio, in depriving plaintiff of her lawful share in the property and seeking even to turn her away therefrom. According to Article 128, Adalia Enriquez being a part owner of the disputed property can bring this action to protect her interest, and her right thereto exists even before the liquidation or dissolution of the conjugal partnership. Article 129 Dela Rama v Dela Rama p. 550 Doctrine: the conjugal property is the actual property which is left at the dissolution of the partnership. It can, therefore, never be determined by adding up the profits, which had been made each year during its existence, and then saying that result is the conjugal property. Facts: 1. Plaintiff Agueda Dela Rama charged her husband with adultery and prayed for a divorce, the division of the conjugal property, and alimony pendente lite. 2. Defendant Esteban Dela Rama in his answer denied the adultery charged against him, charged his wife with adultery.

3. Judgment was rendered against the defendant by the trial court granting a divorce, dissolving the conjugal partnership. 4. In determining the amount of conjugal property, the judge determined in the first place the income which each person had received from his or her property during the partnership. Issue: WON the manner of liquidating the affairs of conjugal partnership is correct. Held: No. It is entirely unwarranted by the law. The theory of the Civil Code is that the conjugal property is the actual property which is left at the dissolution of the partnership. It can, therefore, never be determined by adding up the profits, which had been made each year during its existence, and then saying that result is the conjugal property. Article 148 Villanueva v. Court of Appeals p. 577 Doctrine: There must be proof of actual joint contribution by both the live-in partners before the property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their contribution. Facts: 1. Eusebia Napisa Retuya, is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas Retuya, having been married to the latter on October 7, 1926. They begot five (5) children, namely, Natividad, Angela, Napoleon, Salome, and Roberta (respondents) 2. Spouses Retuya resided at Tipolo, Mandaue City. During their marriage they acquired real properties and all improvements situated in Mandaue City, and Consolacion, Cebu. 3. In 1945, Nicolas Retuya no longer lived with his legitimate family and cohabited with Pacita Villanueva. Procopio Villanueva is their illegitimate son. (all three of them petitioners) 4. Eusebia sought the reconveyance from Nicolas and Pacita of several properties listed in the complaint, claiming the subject properties are her conjugal properties with Nicolas. 5. Petitioners claim that the subject properties are exclusive properties of Nicolas except for Lot No. 152, which they claim is Pacitas exclusive property. 6. The trial court rendered its Decision in favor of Eusebia. 7. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON the subject properties are conjugal properties of Eusebia and Nicolas. Held: Yes. A reading of Article 148 readily shows that there must be proof of actual joint contribution by both the live-in partners before the property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their contribution. The presumption of equality of contribution arises only in the absence of proof of their proportionate contributions, subject to the condition that actual joint contribution is proven first. Simply put, proof of actual contribution by both parties is required, otherwise there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal sharing. Petitioners failed to show proof of actual

contribution by Pacita in the acquisition of Lot No. 152. In short, petitioners failed to prove that Pacita bought Lot No. 152 with her own money, or that she actually contributed her own money to acquire it. Juaniza v. Jose p. 578 Doctrine: It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the co-ownership contemplated in Article 148 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. Facts: 1. Respondent Eugenio Jose, a registered owner and operator of the passenger jeepney involved in an accident of collision with a freight train of the PNR that took place in November 1969 resulted in the 7 deaths and 5 physical injuries of its passengers. 2. That time, Eugenio was married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with Rosalia Arroyo, defendant-appellant for 16 years as husband and wife. 3. Lower courts decision rendered them jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the heir of the deceased, petitioner Victor Juaniza. 4. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: WON Eugenio and Rosalia are co-owners of the jeepney. HELD: No. It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the co-ownership contemplated in Article 148 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. Under the aforecited provision of the Civil Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney. The jeepney belongs to the conjugal partnership of Jose and his legal wife. There is therefore no basis for the liability of Arroyo for damages arising from the death of, and physical injuries suffered by, the passengers of the jeepney which figured in the collision.