Property Relations; Marriage Settlement; Conjugal

Partnership of Gains (2005)

Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church
in Quezon City on July 10, 1990. Prior thereto,
they executed a marriage settlement whereby
they agreed on the regime of conjugal partnership
of gains. The marriage settlement was registered
in the Register of Deeds of Manila, where Mila
is a resident. In 1992, they jointly acquired
a residential house and lot, as well as a
condominium unit in Makati. In 1995, they
decided to change their property relations
to the regime of complete separation of property.
Mila consented, as she was then engaged in a
lucrative business. The spouses then signed a
private document dissolving their conjugal partnership
and agreeing on a complete separation of property.
Thereafter, Gabby acquired a mansion in Baguio City,
5-hectare agricultural land in Oriental Mindoro, which he
registered exclusively in his name. In the year 2000,
Mila's business venture failed, and her creditors sued
her for P10,000,000.00. After obtaining a favorable
judgment, the creditors sought to execute on the spouses'
house and lot and condominium unit, as well as Gabby's
mansion and agricultural land.
a) Discuss the status of the first and the
amended marriage settlements. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage settlement between Gabby and Mila
adopting the regime of conjugal partnership of gains
still subsists. It is not dissolved by the mere
agreement of the spouses during the marriage. It is
clear from Article 134 of the Family Code that in the
absence of an express declaration in the marriage
settlement, the separation of property between the
spouses during the marriage shall not take place
except by judicial order.
b) Discuss the effects of the said settlements
on the properties acquired by the spouses. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The regime of conjugal partnership of gains
governs the properties acquired by the spouses.
All the properties acquired by the spouses after the
marriage belong to the conjugal partnership. Under
Article 116 of the Family Code, even if Gabby
registered the mansion and 5-hectare agricultural
land exclusively in his name, still they are
presumed to be conjugal properties, unless
the contrary is proved.
c) What properties may be held answerable for
Mila's obligations? Explain. (2%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since all the properties are conjugal, they can be held
answerable for Mila's obligation if the obligation
redounded to the benefit of the family.
(Art. 121 [3], Family Code) However, the burden of
proof lies with the creditor claiming against the
properties. (Ayala Investment v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, February 12,
1998, reiterated in
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Except for the residential house which is the family home, all other properties
of Gabby and Mila may be held answerable for Mila's obligation. Since the said p
roperties are conjugal in nature, they can be held liable for debts and obligati
ons contracted during the marriage to the extent that the family was benefited o
r where the debts were contracted by both spouses, or by one of them, with the c
onsent of the other.
A family home is a dwelling place of a person and his family. It confers upon a
family the right to enjoy such property, which must remain with the person const
ituting it as a family home and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors exce
pt in special cases. (Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, March 9,
1999)