PROPERTY REGIME OF UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE - UNIONS UNDER FC 147, ETC.

Valdes v QC RTC: Hus bband and wife are both P.I.; marriage is void ab initio – ex-spouses were directed to
liquidate their common properties under Art. 147 – Husband assails the order; claiming Art. 147 does not apply
to DNM under Art. 36 // WON, Art. 147 shall apply to the liquidation proceeding // YES, Art. 36 = void marriage
= liquidation under Art. 147

Carino v Carino: 1st marriage was under NCC – CPG while 2nd marriage was under FC -- Husband died and
left monetary benefits and financial assistance granted by the government -- 2nd, as the one who spent for the
husband’s medical bills, claimed as one of the rightful heir to the said monetary benefits – 2nd wife alleged that
1st marriage was void due to lack of marriage license // WON, 2nd wife is the rightful heir to the monetary
benefits // NO, even if the 1st marriage was void, a JDN was still needed to remarry; the 1st marriage was under
147 while the 2nd was under 148; 1st wife, as of Art. 147, was entitled to one-half (1/2) of the monetary benefits
even if the husband earned it alone

San Luis v San Luis: Husband contracted 3 marriages – 1st marriage was with Filipina (wife died), 2nd
marriage was with an alien (divorce decree issued, and 3rd marriage was with private respondent (all of which
was under NCC) – husband died and 3rd wife wanted to retrieve her share in the estate of the former – heirs of
the 1st marriage intervened stating that there would be impaired vested rights if the 3rd wife gains from the
estate // WON, the 3rd wife deserves a partition from the estate // YES, under NCC 144 cohabitation with the
husband grants him partition as she was declared as a co-owner of the estate; If she successfully proves the
validity of her marriage and the 2nd wife’s divorce decree in the Philippine courts, then their marriage (3rd)
would go under 148, solidifying her claim further

Gonzales v Gonzales: Respondent wife filed Art. 36 against petitioner husband – it was due to the latter’s
abuse and satyriasis or indiscriminate philandering – wife adduced that she administered the pizza business of
the husband, who belonged to the exclusive properties of the latter; thus, entitling her to part of the earnings of
the said business – RTC granted // WON, respondent wife deserves a share from the pizza business’ earnings
// YES, Art. 147 due to Art. 36 applied; the presumption of co-ownership stood; granting the respondent wife
the share of earnings from the pizza business and other properties of the void marriage

Dino v Dino: Husband filed Art. 36 against wife – wife left and got a divorce decree abroad – RTC and CA
granted – Husband filed a motion for partial reconsideration (of CA) stating; Art. 147 shall apply after the DNM
// WON, the CA erred in ruling that Art. 147 should be applied prior to DNM // YES, Valdes v RTC ruling was
applied

Salas, Jr. v Aguila: Respondent wife filed Art. 36 against petitioner husband and alleged that there was no
CPG – later, wife found out about their CPG and it was registered under the husband with his common law
wife – husband claimed that the waiver or admission of the wife denied her right on the CPG // WON, the
respondent wife deserved a partition of the CPG she unwittingly waived earlier // YES, Art. 147 applied; the
land title bereft of the wife’s name did not necessarily disowned the wife of its ownership, considering that it
was acquired during the void marriage and not during the husband’s cohabitation with his common law wife; as
the husband acted in bad faith, the properties in quo was granted to the wife

Barrido v Nonato: Spouses obtained DNM under Art. 36 – Husband asked for partition – Wife, in defense,
“sold the property to their children” (not notarized and authenticated) – MTC ruled in wife’s favor – RTC
reversed the decision – CA affirmed RTC // WON, the property be partitioned equally among ex-spouses //
YES, Art. 147 and the Valdes doctrine applies; the deed of sale annexed by the wife is not notarized and not
executed and authenticated = the subject property is still owned by both spouses = the property should be
divided in equal

Ocampo v Ocampo: Spouses married under NCC -- Spouses acquired JDN (Art. 36) – there was no inventory
submitted to the RTC for liquidation; rendering the RTC incapable to act upon liquidation – wife appealed that
50/50 liquidation was used (considering 147 applied and it was akin to 102 of ACP) // WON, the equal partition
prevails // YES, the marriage was declared void and 147 shall apply; there was no separate properties
discovered; thus, all properties of their marriage was presumed to be co-owned and were divided equally
UNIONS UNDER FC 148, ETC.

Bienvenido v CA: Husband married 3 times – he left 1st wife, married 2nd wife (private respondent), and
married 3rd wife (petitioner) – husband died – 2nd wife claimed ownership of the 3rd marriage’s home/property –
3rd wife argued that there was a valid deed of sale that was contracted her and her husband // WON, the deed
of sale in favor of the 3rd wife was valid // YES, 2nd wife cannot claim that the subject property was part of the
CPG, since the 2nd marriage was void due to bigamy; the abandoned spouse (1st wife) and not the deserting
spouse can remarry due to abandonment; the 2nd marriage was under 148

Agapay v Agapay: Husband had 2 marriages, 1st was with private respondent and 2nd was with petitioner –
husband died – private respondent claimed ownership of those properties owned by the petitioner during her
cohabitation with the late husband – petitioner averred that the properties in question cannot be taken away
from her since she contributed in paying for the aforementioned properties // WON, the properties in question
forms part of the 1st wife’s CPG // YES, under Art. 148, only those properties that were acquired jointly can be
considered as co-owned; the petitioner’s claims were unlikely since she was of very young age when they
were cohabiting and the acquisition of these properties pointed to the fact that the husband bought it through
his personal wealth.

Tumlos v Sps. Fernandez: Husband had 2 marriages/relationships, 1st was with respondent wife and 2nd was
with petitioner – respondents filed for eviction of the petitioner – petitioner, on the other hand, argued that her
cohabitation with the husband conveyed the property to their co-owned properties; nullifying the eviction filed
against her // WON, the property in conflict was owned by the 2nd wife // NO, NCC 144 cannot apply since it
only precludes to cohabitation without legal impediment; FC 148 applies and the fact that there was no
evidence to adduce the 2nd wife’s contribution in the acquisition of the said property proves the ownership over
the property the 1st wife asserted.

Adriano v CA: Husband had 2 marriages – the private respondents are the heirs of 1st marriage while the
petitioners are the heirs of 2nd marriage – when husband died, he executed a will dividing his properties among
his heirs (both marriages) – petitioners asserted that the part of the properties that was divided was included in
the co-owned properties of the 2nd marriage in accordance to NCC 144; thus, rendering the will void for giving
the private respondents a share of the said properties // WON, the properties in quo were co-owned as of NCC
144 // NO, NCC 144 provides only for cohabitation without legal impediment; the cohabitation with the 2nd wife
started during the subsistence of the 1st marriage; the husband acquired the properties of the 2nd marriage
through the funds generated by the CPG of the 1st marriage

Malilin v Castillo: Petitioner and respondent cohabitated during the subsistence of their separate marriages –
as a fruit of this cohabitation, they established a successful business through joint efforts – due to
irreconcilable differences, the couple separated resulting in petitioner claiming for his share in the said
business – RTC ruled against the petitioner asserting NCC 144 // WON, the petitioner can claim for his share
in the co-owned business // YES, FC 148 or limited co-ownership applies; as the business was successfully
proven to be acquired through their joint efforts, the petitioner had the right to claim his share

Villanueva v CA: Husband is a security guard – husband claims his marriage to wife = with force and
intimidation – husband claims; harassing phone calls // WON, husband can annul marriage // NO, security
guard = knows self-defense = cannot be forced or intimidated

Atienza v De Castro: Petitioner cohabitated with respondent during the subsistence of his marriage – the
couple established a business but decided to separate – petitioner claimed for his share in the, allegedly, co-
owned business // WON, the petitioner can claim for his share // NO, FC 148 applies; there must be proof of
actual contribution in the co-owned property for a spouse to claim his/her share in the property; petitioner failed
to prove his actual contribution

San Luis v San Luis: Husband contracted 3 marriages – 1st marriage was with Filipina (wife died), 2nd
marriage was with an alien (divorce decree issued, and 3rd marriage was with private respondent (all of which
was under NCC) – husband died and 3rd wife wanted to retrieve her share in the estate of the former – heirs of
the 1st marriage intervened stating that there would be impaired vested rights if the 3 rd wife gains from the
estate // WON, the 3rd wife deserves a partition from the estate // YES, under NCC 144 cohabitation with the
husband grants him partition as she was declared as a co-owner of the estate; If she successfully proves the
validity of her marriage and the 2nd wife’s divorce decree in the Philippine courts, then their marriage (3rd)
would go under 148, solidifying her claim further

Borromeo v Descallar: Jambrich, an Austrian, cohabitated with respondent – Jambrich and respondent
acquired a property that was registered to respondent’s name due to constitutional prohibition against
Jambrich -- Jambrich incurred a debt from petitioner – Jambrich and respondent separated – petitioner
discovered the properties of respondent on which he proposed to execute and claim the debt // WON, the
properties of respondent be subject to the debt incurred by Jambrich // YES, respondent was with legal
impediment when she entered into cohabitation with Jambrich; since there was no proof of her actual
contribution to the acquisition of the property, she cannot claim co-ownership over it;

Heirs of Maramag v De Guzman: Husband had 2 marriages – he named the 2nd wife and their illegitimate
heirs to be his beneficiaries – 1st wife counter-claimed, saying that she and her heirs should be the legitimate
beneficiaries // WON, the 2nd family heirs were the legitimate beneficiaries // YES, the 1st wife and 2nd wife
cannot claim the benefits as it is established that spouses cannot donate to each other; the 2nd family heirs,
however, as the designated beneficiaries, were proclaimed as the legitimate beneficiaries

Lacbayan v Samoy: Petitioner and respondent cohabitated regardless of respondent’s subsisting marriage –
the couple engaged into a business where they acquired properties – their relationship turned sour and they
separated – petitioner asserts her ownership over the properties in accordance to the transfer titles issued onto
her by the respondent // WON, the properties in quo can be claimed by the petitioner // NO, the petitioner failed
to adduce her contribution over the acquisition of the properties in quo; J. Brion expressed his concerns as to
the requisites of proving a spouse’s co-ownership rights over a property; (1) properties are acquired DURING
the cohabitation, (2) actual evidence of contribution

Go-Bangayan v Bangayan:

Lavadia v Heirs of Luna: Atty. Luna married 1st wife under OCC – he separated from the 1st wife while
agreeing (in a written statement) to a separation of their properties – Atty. Luna acquired a divorce decree in
Dominican Republic and remarried with petitioner – Atty. Luna’s new law firm acquired a condominium unit –
Atty. Luna died – Respondents claimed their supposed legitimes including the condominium unit – petitioner
countered; stating that the condominium was acquired during the subsistence of their marriage (2 nd marriage) //
WON, the separation of properties agreed in the 1st marriage was valid // NO, CPG governs; the mere written
agreement in the 1st marriage cannot judicially separate the CPG; only through the conditions prescribed by
the law (and through judicial order) can the properties of the 1st marriage be separated; the 2nd marriage and
the divorce decree was void

Tambuyat v Tambuyat: Husband cohabitated with petitioner while his marriage with respondent subsisted – a
TCT was issued by the husband in favor of petitioner – husband died – respondent wished to cancel the TCT –
petitioner argued that they were married and they did have a child whose rights would be prejudiced upon
cancellation of TCT // WON, respondent can move for cancellation of TCT // YES, NCC 144 cannot apply since
the petitioner failed to adduce evidence of her contribution in the acquisition of the property by merely
presenting the TCT; petitioner entered into cohabitation with legal impediment

Fullido v Grilli: Respondent, an Italian, entered into cohabitation with petitioner, a Filipina – the couple
acquired a land in the Philippines – the petitioner acted as the supervisor or administratix of the land –
furthermore, they entered into a lessor/lessee agreement – the couple became estranged and respondent filed
illegal detainer against petitioner // WON, the property in quo became co-owned by the petitioner // YES, due to
the constitutional prohibition against the respondent and the petitioner’s acts of supervision and administration,
the property was conveyed to her
PROPERTY RELATIONS OF MIXED MARRIAGES

Borromeo v Descallar: Jambrich, an Austrian, cohabitated with respondent – Jambrich and respondent
acquired a property that was registered to respondent’s name due to constitutional prohibition against
Jambrich -- Jambrich incurred a debt from petitioner – Jambrich and respondent separated – petitioner
discovered the properties of respondent on which he proposed to execute and claim the debt // WON, the
properties of respondent be subject to the debt incurred by Jambrich // YES, respondent was with legal
impediment when she entered into cohabitation with Jambrich; since there was no proof of her actual
contribution to the acquisition of the property, she cannot claim co-ownership over it;

Cheeseman v IAC: Petitioner (a foreigner) and private respondent married and separated – before they
separated, private respondent acquired a land which was entitled to her name only – after they separated,
private respondent sold the land and petitioner assailed the validity of sale – private petitioner and the third
party (who bought the land) claimed that petitioner, barred by constitutional prohibition, cannot deem the land
acquired in the Philippines as part of his CPG // WON, the disposition of land (sale) contracted by the private
respondent was valid // YES, constitutional prohibition barred petitioner to own the acquired land as his CPG;
thus, enabling the private respondent to encumber or sell the land as her exclusive property

Matthews v Taylor: Husband, british, and wife, Filipina, bought a land in Boracay (under ACP, both paid for it)
– they had a falling out and wife issued an SPA giving rights of encumbrance of the Boracay property in favor
of husband – Petitioner acquired a lease on the Boracay property; a deal he made with wife – husband assails
the validity of lease as he did not give his consent // WON, the wife had the right to encumber the land // YES,
Muller ruling applies; the donation (by means of SPA) the wife made in favor of the husband was void due to
constitutional prohibition; the wife had the sole rights of the Boracay property ever since

Frenzel v Catito: Petitioner, an Australian, cohabitated with respondent, a Filipina – petitioner was so
enamored that he brought far too many gifts and properties for respondent – petitioner discovered that
respondent was also in a relationship with a German – the couple’s relationship turned sour, prompting
petitioner to leave the country – petitioner asked to reimburse most of the gifts he’s given to respondent and
accusing the respondent’s family of taking advantage of him // WON, the petitioner can claim or reimburse the
properties he has given to respondent // NO, the land he acquired in the Philippines was illegally acquired to
begin with (barred by the Constitution); the court cannot remedy a situation when an illegal contract was
willfully entered by any of the parties

Muller v Muller: Husband is a German, wife is a Filipina – husband sold his inheritance from his parents and
used it to buy a parcel of land in the Philippines – spouses separated under ACP – husband claimed for
reimbursement of the land in Antipolo // WON, the land in Antipolo formed part of the ACP // YES, the funds he
acquired from his inheritance could have not formed part of the ACP; however, his act of buying a land in the
Philippines (which is constitutionally prohibited) made the funds and the land in Antipolo part of their ACP

Beumer v Amores: Husband is a foreigner, wife is a Filipina – spouses separated under CPG – wife alleged
that most of the properties were acquired solely by her funds – husband contends otherwise – husband alleged
that he helped purchase the properties despite constitutional prohibition // WON, husband co-owns all
properties // NO, Muller ruling applies; husband is not entitled with reimbursement

Fullido v Grilli: Respondent, an Italian, entered into cohabitation with petitioner, a Filipina – the couple
acquired a land in the Philippines – the petitioner acted as the supervisor or administratix of the land –
furthermore, they entered into a lessor/lessee agreement – the couple became estranged and respondent filed
illegal detainer against petitioner // WON, the property in quo became co-owned by the petitioner // YES, due to
the constitutional prohibition against the respondent and the petitioner’s acts of supervision and administration,
the property was conveyed to her
EFFECTS OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIP ON LEGAL DISPUTES

Gayon v Gayon: Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the respondent wife – petitioner filed for the consolidation of
ownership of properties – respondent husband (petitioner’s brother) died a long time ago – respondent wife
prayed for the dismissal of the case arguing that the petitioner is her brother-in-law; thus, an amicable
settlement should have been proposed before filing the complaint // WON, an amicable settlement or other
efforts were required prior to the institution of the case herein // NO, FC 150 does not list “sister/brother-in-law”
under family relations; earnest efforts were not required

Wainwright v Versoza: Petitioners filed a motion claiming for support in arrears and damages against
respondent due to leaving the family home and maintaining relationship with another woman – petitioner
argued that the earnest efforts required before filing a suit against a family member was not applicable to the
case herein // WON, earnest efforts were required before proceeding with the complaint // NO, NCC 222 is
subject to limitations prescribed by NCC 2035; no compromise should be made regarding future support of the
family

Magbaleta v Gonong: Romana sold Susana a land that belonged to Catalino, a land that was registered in
the name of Rufino, the brother of Catalino and husband of Romana – Catalino prayed for the suit to be barred
as the issue involved was of the nature family relations – CFI respondent Judge ruled without waiting for the
earnest efforts requirement // WON, the judge was correct in allowing the case to continue without the earnest
efforts requirement of NCC 222 // YES, a stranger or a third party involved in a suit among family members
cannot be served a delayed judgment; it would be unfair for a stranger to await the settlement among family
members

Tribiana v Tribiana: Petitioner husband left the conjugal home with their 1 year old daughter – respondent
wife filed for habeas corpus against husband – petitioner husband alleges violation, on part of the respondent
wife, of ROC rule 16 sec. 1(j) or FC 151 // WON, the writ of habeas corpus can be invalidated // NO, there was
an attached barangay certification proving that there was an attempt of reconciliation between the spouses
earlier; A dismissal under Section 1(j) of Rule 16 is warranted only if there is a failure to comply with a
condition precedent. Given that the alleged defect is a mere failure to allege compliance with a condition
precedent, the proper solution is not an outright dismissal of the action, but an amendment under Section 1 of
Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Hiyas Savings v Acuna: Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for cancellation of mortgage
he instituted – his wife and the petitioners was, allegedly, acted in conspiracy in making it appear as if private
respondent signed the mortgage contract while the private respondent was really working abroad at that time //
WON, the petitioners can invoke FC 151 // NO, the earnest efforts requirement can only be instituted strictly by
the family members listed under FC 150

Heirs of Favis, Sr. v Gonzales: Dr. Favis married 1st wife and had children with her – when 1st wife died, he
married 2nd wife and had 1 son with her – Dr. Favis died – Dr. Favis executed a deed of donation transferring
and conveying properties to his grandchildren from his 2nd marriage prior to his death – the 1st family heirs,
petitioners, filed an action of annulment of the deed of donation – CA dismissed the case in accordance to FC
151 // WON, the dismissal of the case by CA was correct // NO, A failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a
compromise in a complaint among members of the same family, is not a jurisdictional defect but merely a
defect in the statement of a cause of action; the filling for violation fo ROC 16, sec. 1(j) should have been done
before the jurisdiction was passed onto the CA