2000 Q. No.

1-a
a) As finance officer of K and Co., Victorino
arranged a loan of P5 million from PNB for the
corporation. However, he was required by the
bank to sign a Continuing Surety Agreement to
secure the repayment of the loan. The corporation
failed to pay the loan, and the bank obtained a
judgment against it and Victorino, jointly and
severally. To enforce the judgment, the sherif
levied on a farm owned by the conjugal
partnership of Victorino and his wife Elsa. Is the
levy proper or not? (3%)
UP Suggested Answer:
The levy is not proper there being no showing that
the surety agreement executed by the husband
redounded to the benefit of the family. An
obligation contracted by the husband alone is
chargeable against the conjugal partnership only
when it was contracted for the benefit of the
family. When the obligation was contracted on
behalf of the family business the law presumes
that such obligation will redound to the benefit of
the family. However, when the obligation was to
guarantee the debt of a third party, as in the
problem, the obligation is presumed for the

benefit of the third party, not the family. Hence,

for the obligation under the surety agreement to
be chargeable against the partnership it must be
proven that the family was benefited and that the
benefit was a direct result of such agreement,
(Ayala Investment v. Ching, 286 SCRA 272)
Art. 122. The payment of personal debts
contracted by the husband or the wife before or
during the marriage shall not be charged to the
conjugal properties partnership except insofar as
they redounded to the benefit of the family.
Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities
imposed upon them be charged to the
partnership.
However, the payment of personal debts
contracted by either spouse before the marriage,
that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them,
as well as the support of illegitimate children of
either spouse, may be enforced against the
partnership assets after the responsibilities
enumerated in the preceding Article have been
covered, if the spouse who is bound should have
no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient;
but at the time of the liquidation of the
partnership, such spouse shall be charged for
what has been paid for the purpose abovementioned.

concurrence. Verde contends that in any case the

action has prescribed or is barged by laches.
Winda rejoins that her Torrens title covering the
property is indefeasible and imprescriptable.
A. Define or explain the term laches. (2%)

2002 Q. No.7-b
VII.
Way back in 1948, Windas husband sold in favour
of Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10-hectar
property belonging to their conjugal partnership.
The sale was made without Windas knowledge,
much less consent. In 1950, Winda learned of the
sale, when she discovered the deed of sale among
the documents in her husbands vault after his
demise. Soon after, she noticed that the
construction of the sports complex has started.
Upon completion of the construction in 1952, she
tried but failed to get free membership privileges
in Verde. Winda now file a suit against Verde for
the annulment of the sale on the ground that she
did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde
contends that, in accordance with the Spanish
Civil Code which was then in force, the sale in
1948 of the property did not need her

B. Decide the case, starting your reasons for your

decision. (3%)
UP Suggested Answer:
A. LACHES means failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to
do what, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier. It is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time. (De Vera v. CA, 305 SCRA624 [1999])
B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code did
not require the consent of the wife for the validity
of the sale, an alienation by the husband in fraud
of the wife is void as held in UyCoque v. Navas, 45
Phil. 430 (1923). Assuming that the alienation in
1948 was in fraud of Winda and, therefore, makes
the sale to Verde void, the action to set aside the
sale,
nonetheless,
is
already
barred
by
prescription and laches. More than 52 years have
already elapsed from her discovery of the sale in
1950.

UP Alternative Answer:
B. Windas claim that her Torrens Title covering
the property is indefeasible and imprescriptible
[does not hold water] is not tenable. The rule of
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title means that after
one year from the date of issue of the decree of
registration or if the land has fallen into the hands
of an innocent purchaser for value, the title
becomes incontestable and incontrovertible.
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, on the other hand, means
that no title to the land in derogation of that of the
registered owner may be acquired by adverse
possession or acquisitive prescription or that the
registered owner does not lose by extinctive
prescription his right to recover ownership and
possession of the land. The action in this case is
for annulment of the sale executed by the
husband over a conjugal partnership property
covered by a Torrens Title. Action on contracts are
subject to prescription.
2000 Q. No. 1-b
On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were
married
to
each
other
without
a
marriagesettlement. In 1985, they acquired a
parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990,
whenAngelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the

said lot to Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable?

(2%)
UP Suggested Answer:
The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in
1990, the Family Code is the lawapplicable. Under
Article 124 of the FC, the sale of a conjugal
property by a spouse without theconsent of the
other is void.
Alternative Answer:
The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family
Code may apply retroactively but onlyif such
application will not impair vested rights. When
Rene and Angelina got married in 1980,the law
that governed their property relations was the
New Civil Code. Under the NCC, asinterpreted by
the Supreme Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon, 100
SCRA 628 and reiterated inHeirs of Ayuste v.
Malabonga, G.R No, 118784, 2 September 1999,
the sale executed by thehusband without the
consent of the wife is voidable. The husband has
already acquired a vestedright on the voidable
nature of dispositions made without the consent
of the wife. Hence, Article124 of the Family Code
which makes the sale void does not apply.
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of
the conjugal partnership shall belong to both

spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the

husband's decision shall prevail, subject to
recourse to the court by the wife for proper
remedy, which must be availed of within five
years from the date of the contract implementing
such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
otherwise
unable
to
participate
in
the
administration of the conjugal properties, the
other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include
disposition or encumbrance without authority of
the court or the written consent of the other
spouse. In the absence of such authority or
consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be
void. However, the transaction shall be construed
as a continuing ofer on the part of the consenting
spouse and the third person, and may be
perfected as a binding contract upon the
acceptance by the other spouse or authorization
by the court before the ofer is withdrawn by
either or both oferors.

2003 Q. No. 6-(iv)

Which of the following remedies, i.e., (a)

declaration of nullity of marriage, (b) annulment
of marriage, (c) legal separation, and/or (d)
separation of property, can an aggrieved spouse
availhimself/herself of-(i) If the wife discovers after
the marriage that her husband has AIDS.(ii) If
the wife goes (to) abroad to work as a nurse and
refuses to come home after theexpiration of her
three-year contract there.(iii) If the husband
discovers after the marriage that his wife has
been a prostitute before theygot married.(iv) If the
husband has a serious afair with his secretary
and refuses to stop notwithstandingadvice from
relatives and friends.(v) If the husband beats up
his wife every time he comes home drunk. 5%
UP Suggested Answer:
(i) Since AIDS is a serious and incurable sexuallytransmissible disease, the wife may file anaction
for annulment of the marriage on this ground
whether such fact was concealed or not fromthe
wife, provided that the disease was present at the
time of the marriage. The marriage isvoidable
even though the husband was not aware that he
had the disease at the time of marriage.(ii) If the
wife refuses to come home for three (3) months
from the expiration of her contract, sheis
presumed to have abandoned the husband and he

may file an action for judicial separation of

property. If the refusal continues for more than
one year from the expiration of her contract,
thehusband may file the action for legal
separation under Art. 55 (10) of the Family Code
on theground of abandonment of petitioner by
respondent without justifiable cause for more than
oneyear. The wife is deemed to have abandoned
the husband when she leaves the conjugal
dwellingwithout any intention of returning (Article
101, FC). The intention not to return cannot be
presumed during the 30year period of her
contract.(iii) If the husband discovers after the
marriage that his wife was a prostitute before they
gotmarried,
he
has
no
remedy.
No
misrepresentation or deceit as to character,
health, rank, fortuneor chastity shall constitute
fraud as legal ground for an action for the
annulment of marriage(Article 46 FC).
(iv) The wife may file an action for legal
separation. The husbands sexual infidelity is a
groundfor legal separation 9Article 55, FC). She
may also file an action for judicial separation of
property for failure of her husband to comply with
his martial duty of fidelity (Article 135 (4),101,
FC).(v) The wife may file an action for legal
separation on the ground of repeated physical
violenceon her person (Article 55 (1), FC). She

may also file an action for judicial separation of

propertyfor failure of the husband to comply with
his marital duty of mutual respect (Article 135
(4),Article 101, FC). She may also file an action for
declaration of nullity of the marriage if
thehusbands behavior constitute psychological
incapacity existing at the time of the celebration
of marriage.
Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered
sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:
(1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been
sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil
interdiction;
(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been
judicially declared an absentee;
(3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of
petitioner has been decreed by the court;
(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has
abandoned the latter or failed to comply with his
or her obligations to the family as provided for in
Article 101;
(5) That the spouse granted the power of
administration in the marriage settlements has
abused that power; and

(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses

have been separated in fact for at least one year
and reconciliation is highly improbable.
In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2) and
(3), the presentation of the final judgment against
the guilty or absent spouse shall be enough basis
for the grant of the decree of judicial separation of
property.

Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot

as coowners in equal shares. Under Article 147
of the Family Code, when a man and a woman
who are capacitated to marry each other lived
exclusively with each other as husband and wife,
the property acquired during their cohabitation
are presumed to have been obtained by their joint
eforts, work or industry and shall be owned by
them in equal shares. This is true even though the
eforts of one of them consisted merely in his or
her care and maintenance of the family and of the
household.

2000 Q. No. 2-a

For five years since 1989, Tony a bank VicePresident,
and
Susan,
an
entertainer,
livedtogether as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage although they were
capacitated tomarry each other. Since Tonys
salary was more than enough for their needs,
Susan stopped working and merely kept house.
During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and
house in a plush subdivision. However, after five
years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
a) Who will be entitled to the house and lot? (3%)
UP Suggested Answer:

1997 Q. No. 4-a

Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single,
live exclusively with each other ashusband and
wife without the benefit of marriage. Luis is
gainfully employed. Rizza is notemployed, stays at
home, and takes charge of the household
chores.After living together for a little over twenty
years, Luis was able to save from his
salaryearnings during that period the amount of
P20,000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A
house andlot worth P50,000.00 was recently
purchased for the same amount by the couple. Of
theP50,000.00 used by the common-law spouses
to purchase the property, P200,000.00 had

comefrom the sale of palay harvested from the

hacienda owned by Luis and P300,000. 00 from
therentals of a building belonging to Rizza. In fine,
the sum of P500,000.00 had been fruits
receivedduring the period of cohabitation from
their separate property. A car worth P100,000.00,
beingused by the common-law spouses, was
donated just months ago to Rizza by her
parents.Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate
their cohabitation, and they ask you to give
themyour legal advice on the following:
(a) How, under the law, should the bank deposit of
P200,000.00, the house and lot valuedat
P500,000.00 and the car worth P100,000.00 be
allocated to them?
(b) What would be your answer be (to the above
question) had Luis and Rizza been living together
all the time, i.e., since twenty years ago under a
valid marriage?
UP Suggested Answer:
a) Art. 147 of the Family Code provides in part
that when a man and a woman who
arecapacitated 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 begoverned by the rules of
coownership. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, propertiesacquired while they lived
together shall be presumed to have been obtained
by their Joint eforts,worker Industry, and shall be
owned by them in equal shares. A party who did
not participate inthe acquisition by the other party
of any property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly inthe acquisition thereof if the
former's eforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the familyand of the household.
Thus:1) the wages and salaries of Luis in the
amount of P200,000.00 shall be divided equally
between Luis and Rizza.2) the house and lot
valued at P500.000.00 having been acquired by
both of them throughwork or industry shall be
divided between them in proportion to their
respective contribution, inconsonance with the
rules on co-ownership. Hence, Luis gets 2\5 while
Rizza gets 3\5 of P500.000.00.3) the car worth
P100,000.00 shall be exclusively owned by Rizza,
the same having beendonated to her by her
parents.
UP Suggested Answer:

(b) The property relations between Luis and Rizza,

their marriage having been celebrated 20years
ago (under the Civil Code) shall be governed by
the conjugal partnership of gains, under which the
husband and wife place in a common fund the
proceeds, products, fruits and incomefrom their
separate properties and those acquired by either
or both spouses through their efortsor by chance,
and upon dissolution of the marriage or of the
partnership, the net gains or benefitsobtained by
either or both spouse shall be divided equally
between them (Art. 142. Civil Code).Thus:1) The
salary of Luis deposited in the bank in the amount
of P200.000.00 and the houseand lot valued at
P500,000.00 shall be divided equally between Luis
and Rizza.2) However, the car worth P100.000,00
donated to Rizza by her parents shall
beconsidered to her own paraphernal property,
having been acquired by lucrative title (par. 2,
Art.148, Civil Code).
1992 Q. No. 2-a

In 1989, Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of

age, cohabited with Cora, a widowthirty (30) years
of age. While living together, they acquired from
their combined earnings a parcel of riceland.After
Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with

Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16)years of age. While

living together, Rico was a salaried employee and
Mabel kept house for Ricoand did full-time
household
chores
for
him.
During
their
cohabitation, a parcel of coconut landwas
acquired by Rico from his savings.After living
together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel
separated. Rico then met and marriedLetty, a
single woman twenty-six (26) years of age. During
the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought a
mango orchard out of her own personal earnings.
a) Who would own the riceland, and what property
Relations governs the ownership?Explain. b) Who
would own the coconut land, and what property
Relations governs theownership? Explain.c) Who
would own the mango orchard, and what property
Relations governs theownership? Explain.
UP Suggested Answer:
(a) Rico and Cora are the co-owners of the
riceland. The Relations is that of co-ownership
(Art. 147, Family Code, first paragraph).
Optional Addendum: However, after Rico's
marriage to Letty, the half interest of Rico in
thericeland will then become absolute community
property of Rico and Letty.)(b) Rico is the
exclusive owner of the coconut land. The Relations

is a sole/single proprietorship (Art. 148. Family

Code, first paragraph is applicable, and not Art.
147 FamilyCode).(Optional Addendum: However,
after Rico's marriage to Letty, the coconut land of
Rico willthen become absolute community
property of Rico and Letty.)(c) Rico and Letty are
the co-owners. The Relations is the Absolute
Community of Property (Arts, 75,90and9l, Family
Code).
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
eforts, 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 eforts consisted
in the care and maintenance of the family and of
the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts
inter vivos of his or her share in the property
acquired during cohabitation and owned in
common, without the consent of the other, until
after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is
in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in
the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of
their common children. In case of default of or
waiver by any or all of the common children or
their descendants, each vacant share shall belong
to the respective surviving descendants. In the
absence of descendants, such share shall belong
to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture
shall take place upon termination of the
cohabitation.