153802-HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs. MIGUELA C.

DAILO
Facts Issue Ruling
1.August 8, 1967-Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and I. Can a sale of a conjugal property be I.
Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married. valid without the consent of the other R-No, the sale will not be valid.
2.they purchased a house and lot at Barangay San spouse? L-ART. 124. OF THE FAMILY CODE OF
Francisco, San Pablo City. THE PHIL., Provides in part:
3.The subject property was declared for tax II. Can a conjugal property be held liable The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal
assessment purposes under Assessment of Real for an obligation contracted by either partnership property shall belong to both spouses
Property No. 94-051-2802. spouse? jointly. .In the event that one spouse is
4.The Deed of Absolute Sale, however, was executed incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in
only in favor of the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr. as the administration of the conjugal properties, the
vendee thereof to the exclusion of his wife. other spouse may assume sole powers of
5.December 1, 1993, Marcelino Dailo, Jr. executed a administration. These powers do not include the
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of one powers of disposition or encumbrance which must
Lilibeth Gesmundo, authorizing the latter to obtain a have the authority of the court or the written
loan from petitioner Homeowners Savings and Loan consent of the other spouse. In the absence of
Bank to be secured by the spouses Dailos house and such authority or consent, the disposition or
lot in San Pablo City. encumbrance shall be void
6.Gesmundo obtained a loan in the amount
of P300,000.00 from petitioner. Guiang v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the
7. As security, Gesmundo executed a Real Estate sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of
Mortgage constituted on the subject property. both the husband and wife. In applying Article
8.The transactions, including the the SPA in favor of 124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that
Gesmundo, took place without the knowledge and the absence of the consent of one renders the
consent of respondent. entire sale null and void, including the portion of
9.Upon maturity, the loan remained outstanding. the conjugal property pertaining to the husband
10.petitioner instituted extrajudicial foreclosure who contracted the sale.
proceedings on the mortgaged property.
11. After the extrajudicial sale, a Certificate of Sale II.
was issued in favor of petitioner as the highest R-yes, it can be held liable if the obligation
bidder. redounded to the benefit of the family.
12.After one year without the property being L-Under Article 121 paragraph 3 of the Family
redeemed, petitioner, through its vice-president, Code: [T]he conjugal partnership shall be liable
consolidated the ownership by executing on June 6, for: . . . (3) Debts and obligations contracted by
1996 an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership either spouse without the consent of the other to
and a Deed of Absolute Sale. the extent that the family may have been
13.December 20, 1995-Marcelino Dailo, Jr. Died. benefited.
14.respondent learned that petitioner had already
employed a certain Roldan Brion to clean its
premises and that her car, a Ford sedan, was razed
because Brion allowed a boy to play with fire within
the premises.
15.Claiming that she had no knowledge of the
mortgage constituted on the subject property, which
was conjugal in nature, respondent instituted with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Pablo City,
Civil Case No. SP-2222 (97) for Nullity of Real
Estate Mortgage and Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of
Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale,
Reconveyance with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and Damages against petitioner.
16.petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that the property in
question was the exclusive property of the late
Marcelino Dailo, Jr.
RTC AND CA ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
141323-DAVID V. PELAYO and LORENZA* B. PELAYO v MELKI E. PEREZ
Facts Issue Ruling
1.January 11, 1988-David Pelayo (Pelayo) executed Is it necessary for a consent of one No, the consent may be implied from the acts.
a Deed of Absolute Sale to convey two parcels of spouse to a sale of a conjugal property be
agricultural land (the lots) situated in Panabo, Davao explicit? Sale is a consensual contract that is perfected by
to Melki Perez(perez) mere consent, which may either be express or
2.Loreza Pelayo (Loreza), wife of Pelayo, and whose implied. A wifes consent to the husbands
signature is illegible witnessed the execution of the disposition of conjugal property does not always
deed, signed only on the third page of Perezs have to be explicit or set forth in any particular
application for registration of the deed with the document, so long as it is shown by acts of the
Office of the Register of Deeds in Tagum, Davao wife that such consent or approval was indeed
which was then denied. given.*
3.Perez asked Loreza to sign on the first and second
pages of the deed but she refused. *Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines,
4.August 8, 1991 Perez instituted the instant Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. IV, 5th
complaint for specific performance against Pelayo Ed., pp. 440, 447.
and Lorenza. Defendant Pelayo claimed in any
event, in his Pre-trial brief filed on March 19, 1996,
that the deed was without his wife Lorezas consent,
hence null and void.

1.Involved in the suit is a 750 square meters (sic)
parcel of lot located at Res. Sec. K, Baguio City,
registered in the name of Muriel Pucay Yamane,
wife of Leonardo Yamane, [respondent].
2.the subject property was levied to satisfy the lien
for attorneys fees in the amount of P10,000 by Atty. II. Can the wife bind the conjugal
Guillermo F. De Guzman in Civil Case No. 1841,
entitled Florence Pucay De Gomez, Elsie Pucay
Kiwas and Muriel Pucay Yamane v. Cypress
Corporation, which said counsel handled for Muriel
Pucay and her sister.
3.The said property was scheduled to be sold at
public auction on August 11, 1981.
4.Four days prior to the auction sale, [respondent]
filed a Third-Party Claim with the Office of the
Provincial Sheriff to stop the public auction on the
ground that the subject property is conjugal property
and, therefore, should not be held answerable for the
personal obligation of the Pucay sisters.
5. the Sheriff proceeded with the auction sale despite
[respondents] protest.
6.The property was sold to spouses Josephine [and]
Henry Go (or [petitioners]) as highest bidder.
7.September 4, 1984, [respondent] filed
a Complaint with
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, against
[petitioners] and Sheriff Melgar for annulment and
cancellation of auction sale upon the same ground
stated in the abovementioned third-party claim.
8.Citing the Order of
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch V in
LRC Case No. 2288, which ordered the cancellation
of TCT No. 12491 and directed the Register of
Deeds to issue new title in the name of Josephine
Go.
9.[petitioners] moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground of res judicata. In the Order
160762-Go v Ca
I. Will the conjugal nature of the
property be destroyed if the registration
shows only one spouse?
property for liens charged?
I.
R-No, it does not destroy the presumption of
conjugal partnership.
L- Article 116 of the New Civil Code provides
that all property acquired during the marriage,
whether the acquisition appears to have been
made, contracted, or registered in the name of one
or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal,
unless, the contrary is provided.
As a conditio sine qua non for the operation of
this article in favor of the conjugal partnership,
the party who invokes the presumption must first
prove that the property was acquired during the
marriage.
If they acquired it from or specifically during the
marriage, we then follow the rule that proof of the
acquisition of the subject property during a
marriage suffices to render the statutory
presumption operative.
Diancin v. Court of Appeals, that all the property
acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose
name the same is registered, during the marriage
is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership
of gains, unless it is proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
II.
R-Yes, but only in specific conditions.
L-Under the New Civil Code, a wife may bind
the conjugal partnership only when she purchases
things necessary for the support of the family, or
when she borrows money for that purpose upon
her husbands failure to deliver the needed sum;
when administration of the conjugal partnership is
transferred to the wife by the courts or by the
dated November 28, 1984, the motion was denied by
the trial court.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner while CA
reversed the RTC decision and ruled in favor of the
respondent.
Facts
1.December 30, 1947, Joseph Goyanko (Goyanko)
and Epifania dela Cruz (Epifania) were married.
2.Respondents claim that in 1961, their parents
acquired a 661 square meter property located at 29 F.
Cabahug St., Cebu City.
3.In turn, Goyanko executed on October 12, 1993 a
deed of sale[3]over the property in favor of his
common-law-wife-herein petitioner Maria B. Ching.
4.Respondents thus filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City a complaint for recovery of
property and damages against petitioner, praying for
the nullification of the deed of sale
5.After Goyankos death on March 11, 1996,
respondents discovered that ownership of the
property had already been transferred in the name of
petitioner.
165879-Ching v Goyanko
Issue
I. Can a husband sell to his wife?
II. Can a man sell to his concubine?
husband;or when the wife gives moderate
donations for charity.
Failure to establish any of these circumstances in
the present case means that the conjugal asset
may not be bound to answer for a spouses
personal obligation.
The ruling in Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. De
Garcia that before a conjugal property could be
held liable for the obligation contracted by a
spouse, there must be a showing of some
advantage or benefit that accrued to the conjugal
partnership.
Ruling
I.
R-NO. The husband cannot sell to his wife.
L-ARTICLE 1490. The husband and wife cannot
sell property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed
upon in the marriage settlements; or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of
property under Article 191.
II.
L- Article 1490 of the New Civil Code
The proscription against sale of property
between spouses applies even to common law
relationships.
.:In Calimlim-Canullas v. Hon. Fortun, etc., et
al., the court ruled that,

Facts
1.January 15, 1983-Josefina Castillo 24 years old,
married Eduardo G. Francisco.
2.Eduardo was then employed as the vice president
in a private corporation.
3.August 31, 1984, the Imus Rural Bank, Inc. (Imus
Bank) executed a deed of absolute sale
for P320,000.00 in favor of Josefina Castillo
Francisco, married to Eduardo Francisco, covering
two parcels of residential land with a house.
4.February 15, 1985- by Eduardo executed an
Affidavit of Waiver where he declared that before
his marriage to Josefina, the latter purchased two
parcels of land, including the house constructed
thereon, with her own savings, and that he was
waiving whatever claims he had over the property.
5.January 13, 1986, Josefina mortgaged the said
property to Leonila Cando for a loan
151967-Francisco v Master Ironworks
Issue
Can co-ownership present in unions
without marriage?
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. The sale was subversive of the stability
of the family, a basic social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects.
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.
Ruling
R- yes
L-Article 148 of the Family Code, a co-
ownership may ensue in case of cohabitation
where, for instance, one party has a pre-existing
valid marriage provided that the parents prove
their actual joint contribution of money, property
or industry and only to the extent of their
proportionate interest thereon.
IF the spouse fails to adduce preponderance of
evidence that she contributed money, property or
industry in the acquisition of the subject property
and, hence, is not a co-owner of the property:
of P157,000.00.It appears that Eduardo affixed his
marital conformity to the deed.
6.June 11, 1990, Eduardo, who was then the General
Manager and President of Reach Out Trading
International, bought 7,500 bags of cement
worth P768,750.00 from Master Iron Works &
Construction Corporation (MIWCC) but failed to
pay for the same.
7. On November 27, 1990, MIWCC filed a
complaint against him in the RTC of Makati City for
the return of the said commodities, or the value
thereof in the amount of P768,750.00.
8.January 8, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment
in favor of MIWCC.
9.The court ordered for to pay the amount owed.
10.Sheriff Alejo issued a Notice of Levy on
Execution/Attachment over the lots covered by TCT
No. 87976 (60550) and 87977 (60551) for the
recovery of the balance of the amount due under the
decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 90-325.
11.July 3, 1994, Josefina executed an Affidavit of
Third Party Claim over the two parcels of land in
which she claimed that they were her paraphernal
property, and that her husband Eduardo had no
proprietary right or interest over them as evidenced
by his affidavit of waiver, a copy of which she
attached to her affidavit.
12.She, likewise, requested Sheriff Alejo to cause
the cancellation of the notice of levy on
execution/attachment earlier issued by him.
13.July 28, 1994, Josefina filed a Complaint against
MIWCC and Sheriff Alejo in the RTC of Paraaque
for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order
14.The sale at public auction proceeded. MIWCC
made a bid for the property for the price
of P1,350,000.00.
15.MIWCC cited Article 116 of the Family Code of
the Philippines and averred that the property was the
conjugal property of Josefina and her husband
Eduardo, who purchased the same on August 31,
1984 after their marriage on January 14, 1983.
MIWCC asserted that Eduardo executed the affidavit
of waiver to evade the satisfaction of the decision in
Civil Case No. 90-3251 and to place the property
beyond the reach of creditors; hence, the said
affidavit was null and void.
16.Josefina filed a petition to annul her marriage to
Eduardo in the RTC of Paraaque, Metro Manila, on
the ground that when they were married on January
15, 1983, Eduardo was already married to one
Carmelita Carpio.
17.Josefina and Carmelita testified in Civil Case No.
95-0169. Josefina declared that during her marriage
to Eduardo, she acquired the property covered by
TCT Nos. 87976 (60550) and 87977 (60551),
through the help of her sisters and brother, and that
Eduardo had no participation whatsoever in the said
acquisition.
18.September 9, 1996, the RTC of Paraaque
rendered judgment declaring the marriage between
Josefina and Eduardo as null and void for being
bigamous.
Rtc ruled in favor of josefina but CA reversed it and
ruled in favor of MIWCC.
159521-Gonzales v Gonzales

1. In March 1977, Francisco Gonzales, petitioner,
and Erminda Gonzales, respondent, started living as
husband and wife.
2. After two (2) years, or on February 4, 1979, they
got married.
3. October 29, 1992, respondent filed a complaint
for annulment of marriage with prayer for support
pendente lite.
4. During the time they lived together, they acquired
Whether or not the property regime of a
void marriage should be partitioned
equally between spouses.
I.
R-yes.
L-ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
with each other as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in
equal shares and the property acquired by both of
them through their work or industry shall be
properties. She managed their pizza business and
worked hard for its development.
5. She prays for the declaration of the nullity of their
marriage and for the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership of gains.
6. The husband denied that she was the one who
managed the pizza business and claimed that he
exclusively owns the properties existing during their
marriage.
7. The court found that the husband is afflicted with
satyriasis, and is psychologically incapacitated, so it
declared the marriage void ab initio.
8. the court of Appeals ruled that the properties
should be divided equally between the parties.
1. the parties hereto lived together as husband and
wife from 1986 to 1995 without the benefit of
marriage.
2. sometime in December 1991, Juliet left for Korea
and worked thereat, sending money to John which
the latter deposited in their joint account.
3. In 1992, the original 2-storey residential house
underwent renovation. To it was annexed a new
structure which housed a sari-sari store. This new
structure and the sari-sari store thereat are the
properties involved in this case
4. , Juliet was still in Korea when the annex structure
was constructed in 1992.
5. 1995, the relationship between the two turned
from bad to worse. Hence, they decided to partition
their properties
6. Under their unsigned agreement, John shall leave
the couples dwelling with Juliet paying him the
amount of P428,870.00 representing Johns share in
all their properties.
7. John alleges that the annex property is his
governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary,
properties acquired while they lived together shall
be presumed to have been obtained by their joint
efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
them in equal shares. For purposes of this
Article, a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any property
shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the
acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted
in the care and maintenance of the family and of
the household."
146294-Abing v. Waiyan
Can a co-owner file action for ejectment? I.
R. YES.
whether or not the property subject L-Article 487[8] of the Civil Code, a co-owner
of the suit pertains to the exclusive may bring an action for ejectment against a co-
owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts
ownership of petitioner ?
exclusive ownership of a common property.
II.
R NO.
L- ART. 147. When a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned
by them in equal shares and the property
acquired by both of them through their work or
industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties
acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint
exclusive ownership.
8. Juliet, however, failed to make good the balance.
On account thereof,
9. John demanded of her to vacate the annex
structure housing the sari-sari store. Juliet refused,
prompting John to file an ejectment suit against her
before the MTC of Mankayan, Benguet.
efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
them in equal shares.
In the absence, as here, of proofs to the contrary,
any property acquired by common-law spouses
during their period of cohabitation is presumed to
have been obtained thru their joint efforts and is
owned by them in equal shares. Their property
relationship is governed by the rules on co-
ownership. And under this regime, they owned
their properties in common in equal shares.