VILLANUEVA vs COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner also failed to show proof of
FACTS:
1. In this case, during their marriage, a
couple acquired real properties and all
improvements. Also, the husband is a co-
owner of a parcel of land which he
inherited from his parents.
2. Later on, the husband lived separately
with his legitimate family and cohabited
with another woman
3. When the husband suffered from a
stroke, his illegitimate son was the one
receiving the income from his properties
4. The 1st wife filed an action with written
demands including the illegitimate family
asking for settlements
5. The trial court rendered judgement in
favour of the 1st wife.
6. So the 2nd family who were the
petitioners in this case appealed to the
CA contending that the subject
properties are exclusive properties of the
husband and do not fall under the
conjugal property of the 1st couple. But
the CA upheld the decision of the trial
court with some modification.
7. When the CA denied the petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration, they filed a
petition before the SC
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject properties are
Conjugal
RULING:
1. The SC held that according to Art. 105 of
Family Code, the provisions of this code
shall apply to conjugal partnerships
established even before the Family Code
so applying the Art. 116, if the properties
are acquired during the marriage, the
presumption is that they are conjugal.
2. The date also of the acquisition of the
subject property (lot) clearly showed that
it was during the marriage of the 1st
couple
3. The cohabitation of a spouse with
another person does not severe the tie of
a subsisting previous marriage.
4.
actual contribution by 2nd spouse in the
acquisition of the subject property.
PINTIANO-ANNO vs ANNO
FACTS:
1. Spouses acquired an agricultural land
and which was declared for tax
purposes solely in the name the
husband.
2. The husband executed two documents
of transfer to certain Suanding covering
the subject land without the consent of
the wife contending that he is the lawful
owner and possessor of the subject land.
3. So the wife filed a case in the MTC
against her husband and Suanding
alleging that the subject land belongs to
their conjugal partnership with her
husband, thus could not have been
validly conveyed without her written
consent. And the MTC favoured the wife
because both parties failed to prove the
nature of ownership of the subject land.
4. Suanding then appealed to the RTC and
held that wife failed to show evidence
that the subject land was acquired
during the marriage of the spouses so
conjugal partnership could not be
applied.
5. The wife filed before the SC when the CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject land belongs to the
CPG of the spouses
RULING:
1. The SC held the wife failed to prove that
the acquisition of the subject land was
 during the marriage so it cannot be
presumed under conjugal partnership.
The wife failed to produce a
preponderance of evidence relying on
the strength of her own evidence
2. Also, it did not show when the property
was acquired by spouses so the
presumption of conjugal nature of
property cannot be applied.
SPOUSES GO vs YAMANE
FACTS:
1. In the case at bar, a disputed property
was owned by spouses Yamane,
registered to the name of the wife.
2. The said property was levied to satisfy the
lien for attorneys fees and was
scheduled to be sold at public auction.
3. The husband then filed a Third-Party
Claim to stop the auction alleging that
the subject property is conjugal property
and should not be held answerable for
the personal obligation of his wife and
her sisters or the Pucay Sisters. But the
auction sale proceeded and the
property was sold to the petitioner
4. The husband filed a Complaint with RTC
for annulment and cancellation of
auction sale. The petitioners moved to
dismiss the complaint but the motion was
denied by the trial court.
5. Later on, the wife also filed a Complaint
for damages. The complaint filed by the
husband was consolidated by the
complaint filed by the wife, but the latter
was dismissed as the wife was declared
non-suited for failure to appear.
6. The RTC then rendered a decision that
the property was paraphernal property
of wife and not a conjugal property, and
dismissed the case filed by the husband.
7. When the motion was denied, he
elevated the case to the CA which
reversed the decision of the RTC, in
favour of the husband.
8. The petitioners then filed a petition
before the SC stating that the subject
property is the exclusive paraphernal
property of the wife, thus conjugal
property cannot answer the charging
lien.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject property is conjugal or
paraphernal.
RULING:
1. The SC ruled in favour of the husband
(respondent).
2. It held that the governing provisions are
of the New Civil Code and provides that
all property of the marriage is presumed
to belong to the conjugal partnership,
unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to husband or wife; and that
the party who invokes the presumption
must first prove the property was
acquired during the marriage and may
be rebutted only with strong, clear,
categorical and convincing evidence.
3. Evidences showed that spouses acquired
the property during the marriage and
the petitioner failed to prove that the
property was the exclusive paraphernal
property of the wife.
FERRER vs SPOUSES FERRER
FACTS:
1. A husband applied for a loan to build
improvements including a residential
house and apartment building which
was paid using his and his wifes conjugal
funds.
 2. The half-brother of the husband stop
paying rentals for the apartment alleging
that he had acquired ownership over the
property by virtue of a Deed of Sale
allegedly executed by the husband
when he was bedridden.
3. The husband filed a Complaint for
Annulment of the said sale, but it was
dismissed.
4. Later on, the husband died so his
widowed wife filed a complaint for
payment of conjugal improvements, sum
of money, and accounting with the
prayer for injunction and damages
alleging that she had the right to
reimburse the conjugal partnership of the
cost of improvements of her husbands
lot.
5. In response, the half-brothers of the
husband filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the wife had no cause
of action against them but it was denied
by the RTC
6. So the half-brothers or the respondents of
this case filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA which granted the
petition
7. After the wifes petition for Motion of
Reconsideration was denied, she then
petition before the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner state a cause of
action for her complaint
RULING:
1. Yes. The SC found that the wife failed to
state a cause of action and failure to
make sufficient allegation of a cause of
action in the complaint warrants the
dismissal thereof.
2. The wife was not able to show that there
is an obligation on the part of the half-
brothers of her husband to respect or not
to violate her right and that the
obligation to reimburse rests on the
spouse upon whom ownership of the
entire property is vested; there is no
obligation on the part of the purchaser
of property.
MATTHEWS vs TAYLOR
FACTS:
1. A Filipina was married to a British
National, and they acquired a property
situated at Boracay Island.
2. Later on, they separated and the Filipina
Spouse executed a Special Power of
Attorney in favour of her alien spouse
authorizing him to manage and dispose
the said property.
3. The wife entered into an Agreement of
Lease involving the said property to a
certain Matthews and thereafter took
possession of the property.
4. The alien spouse then instituted an
action for Declaration of Nullity of
Agreement of Lease with damages
claiming that the agreement was null
and void since it was entered into by the
Filipina spouse without his consent.
5. The RTC declared the agreement null
and void since by default however it was
set aside by the CA.
6. In response, Matthews claimed good
faith in transacting the said property
since he believed that the Filipina Spouse
is the owner of the property.
7. The RTC and the CA rendered
judgement in favour of the alien spouse
considering that the subject property is
community property so the consent is
needed from either of the spouses.
8. So Matthews filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the SC.
RULING:
1. The SC reversed and set aside the
decision of the lower courts.
2. Applying the constitutional provision,
aliens are disqualified and absolutely
prohibited from acquiring public and
 private lands in the Philippines, for the Spouses Buado
conservation of national patrimony.
3. So the alien spouse has no right to nullify
1.Petitioners are entitled for damages from
the Agreement of Lease between the
Erlinda for the crime of slander.
FILIPINA Spouse and Matthews.

2.due to insufficient personal property of

Erlinda, the court levy on real properties.

3.An auction was made, petitioners won the

bidding and were issued certificate of sale.

4. A year later, Erlindas husband filed a

complaint seeking to annul the sale with
injunction against petitioners and the deputy
sheriff.

5. He argued that they defendants connived and

directly levied upon and execute his real
property w/o exhausting the real properties of
Erlinda.

6. Petitioners argued that they acted on the

basis of a valid writ of execution and the
resoindent should file the case where the
branch the decision originated.

7. RTC dismissed the complaint- the case must

be filed to the court issuing the writ.

8.Petitioner has still two options (a)to file a

third party claim (b)a right is reserved to him ti
vindicate his claim over the property by any
proper action.

9. CA reversed the RTC decision, remanded back

to RTC.

10. A third party claimant may resort to an

independent separate action, the object of
which is to recover of ownership or possession
of the property seized by the sheriff, as well as
damages arising from wrongful seizure and
detention of the property.
A third party claim must be filed by a person
other than the debtor or his agent, in other
words, a stranger.
Issue: is the husband, who was not a party to a
suit but whose conjugal property is being
executed on account of the other spouse being
the judgement obligor, considered a
stranger?
11.Art. 122- the payment of personal debts
contracted by a spouse before or during the
marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal
partnership except insofar as they redounded to
the benefit of the family.
12. No stretch of imagination can it be
concluded that the civil obligation arising from
the crime of slander committed by the wife
redounded to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.
13. The filing of a separate action by respondent
is proper. CA decision is affirmed.
Metropolitan Bank
1.During the dissolution of marriage; wife was
able to purchase a property; said property was
issued under her name, and she was also
labeled as married therewith to her husband.
2.The marriage was annulled due to P.I. of the
husband
3. After judicial decree of nullity, the spouses
were not able to liquidate their properties.
4.Wife obtained a loan from petitioner;
executed Real Estate Mortgage (REM) including
the property mentioned.
5. To procure the loan, she gave the declaration
of nullity by the court and a waiver from
husband waiving his rights to their conjugal
property; however, it did not include the
property in question.
6. Petitioner issued foreclosure; acquired the
property
7. Husband seeks to declare the nullity of the
mortgage of the said property arguing that it is
still part of conjugal property and was
mortgaged w/o his consent.
8. Petitioner argued that property was
paraphernal in nature.
9. RTC declared REM invalid
10 CA affirmed RTC w/ modifications pertaining
to the award of moral damages & attys fees.
11. Petitioner asserts that under Art. 160 of the
Civil Code applies when there is no proof that
the property was acquired during the marriage,
that the presumption of conjugal partnership to
operate evidence must be adduced to prove
that the property was acquired using conjugal
funds
12. Petitioner cited Francisco vs. CA and Jocson
vs. CA- a property registered in the name of a
certain person w/ a description being married is
no proof that the property was acquired during
the spouses marriage.
13. Respondent cited de leon case and Wong vs.
IAC- petitioner failed to overcome the legal
presumption that the property is conjugal
14. Petitioner erred in its theory that to assume
conjugal partnership, the property must be
acquired using conjugal funds.
15. proof of acquisition during the marital
coverture is a sine qua non for the operation of
presumption of conjugal partnership.
16. The properties acquired before the
dissolution of the marriage continues to subsist
as conjugal partnership until after liquidation
17. The waiver bore husbands forged signature;
he did not waive his rights
18. Petitioner is only entitled to of the
disputed property.
Neveras
1.Spouses are U.S. Citizens w/ properties in U.S.
and Phils.
2. They got divorced, the court awarded the
wife all their properties in the U.S.
3.Wife filed in the Phils petition for judicial
separation of conjugal properties in their Phil
properties.
4. The divorce decree was presented as
evidence but the required certificates to prove
its authenticity, as well as the pertinent
California law on divorce were not presented.
5. The document had no seal from the office
where the divorce decree was obtained.
6. Absent a valid divorce decree, parties are still
legally married in the Phils.
7. General Rule: marriage settlement must be
made before the celebration; exception I
allowed provided that the modification is
judicially approved and refers only to instances
in Art. 65, 67, 128, 135 &136 of FC
8. Wife grounded petition for judicial separation
of property under par. 4 and 6 of Art. 135 of the
FC- a. abandonment and failure to comply
marital obligations.
b. the spouses had been separated in fact for
one year and reconciliation is improbable.
9. The founding of guilt is enough basis for the
grant of judicial separation of property
10. There was no abandonment for they were
still visiting each other
11. They were separated for one year, the
petition of separation of absolute community
must be granted.
12. Art. 102, liquidation follows.
13. Phils did not acquire jurisdiction over
California properties
14. Spouses should have equal share in the
proceeds of their properties.
15.The modification made by the CA is affirmed.
(NOTE: The wife claimed that the husband
agreed to execute a joint affidavit stating that
he shall pay to her 1.1M as proceeds for the
Sampaloc property which the husband sold,
that the husband must indemnify the wife a
sum of money for the redemption of the
property before, that the husband shall
renounce and forfeit all their properties in the
Phils.)
Jovellanos
1.Daniel Jovellanos enterend a lease and
conditional sale agreement to Philamlife for a
certain property.
2. At that time, he was married to Leonor Dizon.
3. After the death of the latter, he married
Annette Jovallenos.
4.During the 2nd marriage, Philamlife executed a
deed of absolute sale to Daniel for having
completed the payment of the property.
5.Daniel donated to petitioner all his rights to
the said property.
6. Daniel died, spawning the present
controversy.
7.Respondent argued that the property was
acquired during the second marriage, petitioner
claimed that it was acquired on the 1st by virtue
of the lease & conditional sale agreement.
8. The above agreement was a pactum
reservatii dominii or the vendor is still the
owner, after the payment of the complete price
can only be the time that Daniel can be
considered the owner.
9. citing the case of pugeda: the certificate of
sale is considered a conveyance of ownership
subject only to the resolutory condition that the
sale may be rescinded of the agreed price has
not been made in full.
10. in the case at bar, payment of the total price
is a condition before ownership.
11. art. 118- PR should reimburse to petitioners
their proportionate shares in the hospitalization
of Daniel
ISSUE: whether or not the lower court erred in
declaring that the property belonged to 2nd
marriage and whether or not FC applies to this
case.
12. The agreement has only the right of
possession of the property, not the ownership.
13. Daniel was declared the owner on the
duration of the 2nd marriage.
14. Art. 256 is applicable-it did not impair
vested rights of the petitioner (FC applied
retroactively)
15. In order for the petitioner to have vested
right, there must be a transition from potential
to actual ownership.
16. deed of absolute sale was executed during
the 2nd marriage, it belonged to their conjugal
partnership
17. Art. 118- any amount advance by the
partnership shall be reimbursed by the owner
or owners of liquidation of property (Anette is
entitled to of the property as her share)
Munoz
1.Property is under the name of the wife, she
inherited from her parents.
2. husband w/ wifes consent loaned money
from GSIS; mortgaging above property
3. respondent constructed a house to the said
property using the loan
4. Property was transferred to petitioner by
Deed of absolute sale enacted by Erlinda
5. Respondents filed a complaint to annul the
DOAS, there was no sale, only mortgage
transaction; documents were forged.
6.Petitioner granted a loan to respondents to
pay for GSIS loan
7.The respondents was not able to pay, thus
prompting the petitioner to issue it to his name.
8. Respondents argued that Eliseos signatures
were forged
9. Petitioner argues that the property was a
paraphernal property of the wife and the
consent of the husband is immaterial.
10. Gen. Rule= all properties acquired forms
part of the conjugal property unless provided
otherwise.
11. It is clear that the wife inherited the lot from
her father. It is excluded in the community
property by virtue of Art. 92 and 109 of the FC
12. The lot is wifes exclusive property
13. Art. 120 of the FC- if the improvement
results in the increase of value of the property,
it shall belong to the conjugal partnership,
subject to reimbursement. Otherwise, said Abalos
property shall be retained in ownership of the 1.
owner spouse.

14. The value of the property is more than the

amount paid by the husband to the GSIS

15. Property remains as the exclusive

paraphernal property of the wife.