Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

MAXEY V.

CA Nature: Action to annul sale of properties and recovery thereof Ponente: Gutierrez Date: 11 May 1984 DOCTRINE: A common law wife owns property in common with her husband because of her contribution to the marriage, which need not come in monetary form. FACTS: Relevant Provision of Law: Art. 144 of the Civil Code1 Melbourne Maxey and Regina Morales started living together in 1903 but were only married in a military fashion. However, they had a church wedding in 1919. The properties in dispute were acquired in 1911 and 1912. In 1919, Regina died. Melbourne remarried and in 1953, his second wife Julia (using a power of attorney) sold the properties to private respondents spouses Macayra. Julia is of the belief that said properties were exclusive to Melbourne. Petitioners are children of Melbourne and Regina. They seek the annulment of the above sale and recovery of possession. They allege that such properties were conjugal properties of their parents marriage as they were bought with their joint effort and capital. The trial court ruled for the petitioners, while the CA found otherwise. ISSUES: (1) W/N Melbourne and Regina were married in 1903 in military fashion RULING: Act No. 3613 recognizing military marriages was only enacted in 1929. The military wedding did not make a valid marriage. They were only legally married in 1919. (2) W/N the properties in question were conjugal or exclusive to Melbourne RULING: They were conjugal property. The CA disputed the application of Art. 144 of the Civil Code because it could not be applied retroactively in prejudice of vested rights. But even if Art. 144
When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
1

did apply, the CA is of the view that the property could not have been acquired by the spouses joint efforts because this pertains to monetary contributions and Regina was a mere housewife. SC rules otherwise. It applies Art. 144 retroactively because no vested rights of Melbourne were impaired because there exists a concurrent right of Regina or her heirs to a share of the properties in question. The disputed properties were owned in common by Melbourne and the estate of his late wife Regina when they were sold. Art. 144 recognizes that it would be unjust to require a woman who is a wife in all aspects of the relationship except for the requirement of a valid marriage to abandon her home and children, neglect her traditional household duties, and go out to earn a living or engage in business before the rules on co-ownership would apply. It does not matter that she made no monetary contribution, for the "real contribution" to the acquisition of property must include not only the earnings of a woman but also her contribution to the family's material and spiritual goods through caring for the children, administering the household, husbanding scarce resources, freeing her husband from household tasks, and otherwise performing the traditional duties of a housewife. But given that the properties were owned in common by the spouses, Julias sale over Melbournes share is valid. Petitioners should return one-half of the purchase price of the land to private respondents while the latter should pay some form of rentals for their use of one-half of the properties.

Вам также может понравиться