You are on page 1of 2

ONAS v JAVILLO

FACTS:

Crispulo Javillo contracted two marriages.


First marriage: Ramona Levis
o
they had 5 children (Appellees)
o
11 parcels of land acquired
Second marriage: Rosario Onas (Appellant)
o
4 children
o
20 parcels of land acquired
18 May 1927: Javillo died without a will
Santiago Andrada was named administrator
2 projects for partition. First was disapproved. Second is what is being tackled on appeal here
Appellant claims lower court erred
1. Holding that all the properties acquired during the second marriage were acquired with the
properties of the first marriage.
2. In approving the partition dated Sept. 9, 1931 notwithstanding that the same did not include all of the
properties of Javillo

ISSUES:
1) WON the community partnership shall continue to exist between the surviving spouse and the heirs
of the deceased spouse NO
Matienzo states that: When the marriage is dissolved, the cause that brought about the community ceases, for the
principle of an ordinary partnership are not applicable to this community, which is governed by special rules.
Provisions of law governing the subject should cease to have any effect for the community of property is admissible
and proper in so far as it conforms to unity of life, to the mutual affection between husband and wife, and serve as
a recompense for the care of preserving and
increasing the property; all of which terminates by the death of one of the partners.

Manresa: Community terminates when the marriage is dissolved or annulled or when during the
marriage an agreement is entered into to divide the conjugal property.

2) WON the properties of the second marriage can be claimed as products of the
properties of the first marriage NO
Whatever is acquired by the surviving spouse on the dissolution of the partnership by death or
presumption of death, or by either of the spouse on termination of the partnership, whether the acquisition be
made by his or her lucrative title, it forms part of his or her own capital, in which the other consort, or his
or her heirs, can claim no share.

3) WON the partition that was approved by the lower court is valid NO
Partition was based on the claim that it does not appear that there was liquidation of the partnership of property of
the first marriage nor does it appear that they asked for such liquidation.
Partition was based on the erroneous assumption that the properties of the second marriage were produced by the
properties of the first marriage. Partition is not in conformity with
the law.

Judgment of the lower court is reversed and case REMANDED for further proceedings.

NOTES:

Art 92 (3): The following shall be excluded from the community property:

(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage,
and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property. (201a)

Partition should be:

One half of Conjugal Property of first marriage: divided amongst the five children of that marriage
One half CP of second marriage: adjudicated to second wife
Second wife has right of usufruct over property of her husband. Which is equal to 1/9 of 2/3 of that property
legitime of children of both marriages

You might also like