MERCEDES CALIMLIM- CANULLAS, petitioner, vs. HON. WILLELMO FORTUN, Judge, Court of First instance of Pangasinan, Branch I, and CORAZON DAGUINES, respondents.
HELD:
PONENTE: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACTS:
Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas and Fernando Canullas
were married in 1962. They had 5 children, and were living on a house situated on a land inherited by the Fernando. 1978, Fernando left his family and lived with Corazon Daguines. 1980, Fernando sold the house and lot to Daguines. (P2,000.00) Daguines, unable to take possession of the house and lot, initiated a complaint on June 19, 1980 for quieting of title and damages against Mercedes. Mercedes resisted, claiming that the house and lot were conjugal properties, and the sale was null and void for she had not consented thereto. RTC First Ruling: Daguines was declared as the lawful owner of the land in question as well as the one-half (1/2) of the house erected on the said land. Mercedes prayed for reconsideration. RTC New Ruling: Daguines was declared as the lawful owner of the land. House was declared conjugal property, declaring the sale of the house null and void.
ISSUE:
WON the construction of a conjugal house on the
exclusive property of the husband ipso facto gave the land the character of conjugal property WON the sale of the lot together with the house and improvements thereon was valid under the circumstances surrounding the transaction
Yes. Both (land and building) belong to the conjugal
partnership but the conjugal partnership is indebted to the husband for the value of the land. The spouse owning the lot becomes a creditor of the conjugal partnership for the value of the lot, which value would be reimbursed at the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Fernando could not have alienated the house and lot to Daguines since Mercedes had not given her consent to said sale. (Art. 158 of Civil Code: Buildings constructed at the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses also pertain to partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same.) No. The contract of sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their support. That sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. The law emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other subject to certain exceptions. Similarly, donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited. And this is so because if transfers or con conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other, as well as to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of
family law. The prohibitions apply to a couple living as
husband and wife without benefit of marriage, otherwise, "the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union." Those provisions are dictated by public interest and their criterion must be imposed upon the will of the parties.
thereon was declared under Tax No. 06022 in the name
of Ramon C. Ong and Teodora B. Ong It was the contention of the Ramon that since the surname "Ong" (the surname of the husband Ramon C. Ong) was carried by Teodora in the aforesaid declaration, that indicates that the subject property was acquired during the marriage. By reason thereof, the property in dispute is presumed to be owned jointly by both spouses. ISSUE: WON the property in dispute is conjugal
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS
Improvements on CGP Property: CASE No. 92 Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1
HELD: No, it is paraphernal (property over which the wife has
complete control; not part of the wifes dowry). (J. MelencioHerrera; Former Associate Justice that concurred in the case at bar, now chairman of this division, took no part)
RAMON C. ONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
FRANCISCO BOIX and ARSENIO CAMINO AS DEPUTY SHERIFF OF CAMARINES NORTE, respondents. PONENTE: PARAS, J.: FACTS:
Ramon Ong filed a complaint for the annulment of
auction sale of a parcel of land, allegedly owned conjugally by the plaintiff and his former wife Teodora Ong, in favor of Francisco Boix. Auction sale was made due to failure of the Teodora to pay her loan obtained from Francisco Boix who lent her money in relation to her own logging business in Camarines Sur. (P2,827.83) Ramon argued that the subject property is really conjugal which the wife could not legally bind, and considering that the indebtedness was contracted by the wife only, the levy of the subject property not owned exclusively by the wife owned jointly with the husband is improper. Ramon based his argument on the fact that the property was "declared, under Tax No. 05378, in the name of Teodora B. Ong while the house erected
The mere use of the surname of the husband in the tax
declaration of the subject property is not sufficient proof that said property was acquired during the marriage and is therefore conjugal. It is undisputed that the subject parcel was declared solely in the wife's name, but the house built thereon was declared in the name of the spouses. (land-paraphernal, houseconjugal) It was correctly pointed out by the CA, the party who invokes the presumption that all property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership (Art. 160, New Civil Code) must first prove that the property was acquired during the marriage. o Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the property in dispute is conjugal, the same may still be held liable for the debts of the wife in this case. Under Art. 117 of the Civil Code, the wife may engage in business although the husband may object (but subject to certain conditions). o It is clear from the records that the wife was engaged in the logging business with the husband's knowledge and apparently without
any objection on his part. The acts of the
husband show that he gave his implied consent to the wife's engagement in business. After all, whatever
profits are earned by the wife from her business
goes to the conjugal partnership. (J. MelencioHerrera, concurring opinion, CA)