112695815 Digests for Absolute Community of Property

of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Absolute Community Digest
  MULLER VS MULLER Gr 149615 08.29.06 FACTS   Petition for review on certiorari which terminated the regime of absolute community of property between petitioner and respondent P and R (German) were married in Germany and resided there in a house owned by R's parents but later permanently resided in the Ph. R had inherited the house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo and in the construction of a house. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of P. After they separated, R filed a motion for separation of properties RTC DECISION: - terminated the regime of absolute community of property It also decreed the separation of properties between them and ordered the equal partition of personal properties located within the country, excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during the marriage. - Re Antipolo property, R cannot recover his funds coz it was a violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution which prohibited aliens from procuring private lands. CA DECISION: there is nothing in the Constitution preventing R from procuring land then ordered P to reimburse him said amount.RATIO   NO. respondent. Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, respondent's disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed. W Where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud. R cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition.  HELD   Granted.     ISSUE  WON respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property?  PACIFIC ACE VS YANAGISAWA GR 175303 04.11.12 FACTS   R (Japanese) and Evelyn married. Evelyn then bought a townhouse unit which was registered in her name. R filed a PDN against Evelyn on the ground of bigamy. During the pendency of the case, R filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Restraining Order against Evelyn and an Application for a Writ of a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin her from disposing or encumbering all of the properties registered in her name. R's petition became moot coz Evelyn committed in open court that she will not dispose of the property during the pendency of the case. Evelyn obtained a loan from P (PAFIN) and executed a REM (real estate mortgage) in favor of P over the townhouse unit. R filed for an annulment of the REM. MAKATI RTC DECISION: (at the time of the mortgage) dissolved the marriage between R and Evelyn and ordered the liquidation of their properties. PQUE RTC DECISION: - a foreign national, cannot possibly own the mortgaged property. - Without ownership, or any other law or contract binding the defendants to him, Eiji has no cause of action that may be asserted against Evelyn and P. CA DECISION: annulled the REM executed by Evelyn in favor of PAFIN.  of Eiji and Evelyn has been submitted for the resolution of the Makati RTC, and is pending[41] appeal before the CA. The doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference dictates that the assumption by the Makati RTC over the issue operates as an ªinsurmountable barrierº to the subsequent assumption by the Parañaque RTC.  .Jurisprudence holds that all acts done in violation of a standing injunction order are voidable as to the party enjoined and third parties who are not in good faith. The party, in whose favor the injunction is issued, has a cause of action to seek the annulment of the offending actions  HELD   Denied for lack of merit.  ISSUE   WON pque rtc's decision was improperRATIO   YES. The issue of ownership and liquidation of properties acquired during the cohabitation  ABRENICA VS ABRENICA GR 180572 06.18.12 FACTS   P and R were law firm partners. R filed a case against P d to return partnership funds representing profits from the sale of a parcel of land and sought to recover from petitioner retainer fees that he received from two clients of the firm and the balance of the cash advance that he obtained. P filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that the sheriff had levied on properties belonging to his children and petitioner Joena. Joena filed an Affidavit of Third Party alleging that she and her stepchildren owned a number of the personal properties sought to be levied and that it was under their ACP. A Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was issued on 3 January 2008 in favor of the law firm for the P's properties. HELD  vehicles nor the house and lot belong to the second marriage.Petition denied.  *P has been previously married to another woman but their marriage has already been dissolved. ISSUE   WON Joena had the right to the claim?RATIO   NO. Two of these stepchildren were already of legal age when Joena filed her Affidavit. As to one of the children, parental authority over him belongs to his parents. Absent any special power of attorney authorizing Joena to represent Erlando's children, her claim cannot be sustained. Art. 92, par. (3) of the Family Code excludes from the community property the property acquired before the marriage of a spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage; and the fruits and the income, if any, of that property. Thus, neither these two   LUZON SURETY CO VS DE GARCIA 30 SCRA 111 FACTS   Luzon Surety granted a crop loan 1to Chavez based on a surety bond executed in favor of Philippine National Bank where Garcia was one of the guarantors of the indemnity agreement.   On April 1957, PNB filed complaint against Luzon Surety which subsequently prompted Luzon Surety to file a complaint against the guarantors (one of which was Garcia). The lower court ruled in favor of PNB in the first case and ordered the guarantors in the second case to pay Luzon Surety.   CFI DECISION: issued a writ of execution for Garcia to pay the amount of P3,839. On August, the sheriff levied his sugar quedans which were conjugal property of the Garcia spouses.   The Garcias filed a suit of injunction which the lower court found in their favor based on Art. 161 of the CC. Luzon Surety appealed to the CA which affirmed the lower court's decision.. ISSUE   WON a conjugal partnership, in the absence of any showing of benefits received, could be held liable on an indemnity agreement executed by the husband to accommodate a third party in favor of a surety company?  act for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Such inference is more emphatic in this case, when no proof is presented that Vicente Garcia in acting as surety or guarantor received consideration therefor, which may redound to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. In Article 161 of the CC, a conjugal partnership under that provision is liable only for such debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. There must be the requisite showing then of some advantage which clearly accrued to the welfare of the spouses. There is none in this case.HELD   CA's decision affirmed.RATIO   NO. Art. 163 of the New Civil Code states that as such administrator the only obligations incurred by the husband that are chargeable against the conjugal property are those incurred in the legitimate pursuit of his career, profession or business with the honest belief that he is doing right for the benefit of the family. This is not true in the case at bar for we believe that the husband in acting as guarantor or surety for another in an indemnity agreement as that involved in this case did not
Similar documents
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks