Reviewer
| Front | Ownership shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:1. When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partneship, subject ot reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement (Muñoz Jr v Ramirez 156125)2. If the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value is equal to or les than the value of the principal property at the time of the improvement, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement (Accession)Note: In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, whic shall be made at the time of the liquidation. |
| Back | Whenever improvements, whether for utility or adornment, are made on aseparate property of the spouses at the expense of (1) the partnership; or (2) through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses, to whom shall the ownership pertain? |
| Front | Exceptions:1. If the ante-nuptial debt redounded to the benefit of the family; or2. If the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient, provided that the charges and obligations of the conjugal partnership have been covered.Note: But at the time of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for this purpose (FAMILY CODE, Art. 122). |
| Back | As a general rule, the payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership. Neither shall the fines and indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership. What is the exception? |
| Front | No. In the recent case of Jorge v. Marcelo, Before the presumption of conjugal nature of property can apply, it must first be established that the property was in fact acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal partnership. The party who asserts this presumption must first prove said time element. Paz has not established the condition sine qua non for the presumption of conjugality of property to apply. She has not proven or even alleged when the properties were actually acquired. Instead, she merelyclaimed that the date of registration of property is the same as the date ofacquisition. Hence, in accordance with Jorge, we find that the subject properties, registered in the name of Camilo, Sr., are paraphernal in nature (Cali Realty Corp. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 257454, July 26, 2023, J. Lazaro-Javier Case). |
| Back | X and Y got marriedo on May 20, 1930. Their union bore five children, namely: A, B, C, D, and E. Z Corp was organized with an authorized capital stock of PHP5,000,000.00. Its incorporators were X, A, B, C, and E. D was not included as an incorporator or stockholder. Subsequently executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of Z Corp on October 5, 1995 (Deed of Assignment), conveying to it parcels of land which he allegedly inherited from his parents. These parcels of land (subject properties), covered by various TCTs, constituted an aggregate land area of 530,491 square meters. D caused the annotation of her adverse claim on Z Corp's TCTs, asserting ownership over the parcels of land covered thereby to the extent of her one-sixth share in Y's estate. D contended that: (a) the subject properties were conjugal in nature; and (b) she inherited one-sixth portion of the subject properties upon the death of Y. Do the parcels of land belong to the conjugal properties of spouses X and Y? |