Absolute Community Cases
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,818 views
This document summarizes several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to property rights and ownership. In the first case, Helmut was not entitled to reimbursement for funds used to purchase property in the Philippines as a foreigner. In the second case, Benjamin did not have the right to nullify an agreement related to property purchased in the Philippines with his funds as a foreigner. In the third case, properties acquired before marriage by Erlando from a former marriage were excluded from the community property of his second marriage.
Absolute Community Cases
- 2. MULLER VS MULLER GR. NO. 149615 AUGUST 29, 2006 FACTS: Elena and Helmut were married in Germany and resided in the house owned by Helmut’s parents but later permanently resided in the Philippines. Helmut had inherited the house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo and in the construction of a house. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of Elena. After their separation, Helmut filed a motion for separation of properties for reimbursement of the property in Antipolo ISSUE: WON respondent is entitled to reimburse of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property. HELD: No, for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, Helmut’s disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute.
- 3. MATTHEWS VS TAYLOR GR. NO. 164584 JUNE 22, 2009 FACTS: Benjamin (British) and Joselyn (Filipina) Taylor, spouses, bought a lot (Boracay Property) which was financed by Benjamin, also through the funds of Benjamin, they managed to improve and convert the same lot to a vacation and tourists’ resort. When the spouses were falling out, Joselyn executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of her husband and which authorized the latter to maintain, sell, lease and sub-lease their Boracay Property. One day, Joselyn and petitioner Philip Matthews had an Agreement of Lease without the consent of Benjamin. Benjamin instituted a Declaration of Nullity of Agreement against the two. ISSUE: WON Benjamin was the actual owner of the property since he provided funds used in purchasing the same. HELD: No, Benjamin has no right to nullify, which makes him not the owner. As provided in the FC and Constitution, an alien/foreigner is prohibited to acquire public or private property/land in the Philippines. Therefore, no declaration of can be made that the subject property was part of the conjugal/community property of the spouses.
- 4. ABRENICA VS ABRENICAS GR. NO. 180572 JUNE 18, 2012 FACTS: Petitioner Erlando Abrenica and respondent Joena Abrenica were law firm partners. One day, R filed a case against P to return the partnership funds representing profits from a sale of a parcel of land and sought to recover from P, the retainer fees that he received from 2 clients of the firm and the balance of the cash advance that he obtained. P filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging the Sheriff as having levied on properties belonging to his children and his wife. Joena, then filed an Affidavit of Third Party alleging that she and her stepchildren owned a number of personal properties owned to be levied. A sheriff’s Certificate of Sale, was issued on January 3, 2008 in favor of the law firm for the petitioner’s properties. P had been previously married to another woman and whose marriage was dissolved. ISSUE: WON Joena had the right to the claim HELD: No, art. 92(3) of FC excludes from the Community Property, properties acquired before the marriage of a spouse who has legitimate descendants from a former marriage; and the fruits and income, if any of that property therefore, neither their vehicles or house and lot belong to the second marriage.
- 5. FRANCISCO VS GONZALES GR. NO. 177667 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 FACTS: Due to a Declaration Nullity of Marriage, Cleodualdo and Michele had agreed to set forth their obligations, rights and responsibilities on matters relating to their children’s support, custody, visitation as well as dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains in a compromise agreement. The ownership of the conjugal property which consists of house and lot covered by Transfer Certificate in the name of the former spouses shall be transferred by a deed of donation to children Cleodia and Ceamantha upon reaching 19 and 18. the respondent ordered Michele and her partner to vacate premises leased to them and to pay back rentals, unpaid telephone bills and attorney’s fees. The real property donated to Cleodia and Ceamantha were used as payment. ISSUE: WON the conjugal property of the former spouses may held accountable. HELD: No, the power of the Court to execute judgment extends to properties belonging to the judgment debtor alone, thus in this case, to those belonging to Michele and Matrai. With Cleodualdo and Michele who was married prior to the affectivity of the FC, property relations are governed by the Civil Code, on Conjugal Partnership of gains.
- 6. PACIFIC ACE VS YANAGISAWA GR. NO. 175303 APRIL 11, 2012 FACTS: Respondent Eiji Yanagisawa married Evelyn Castaneda, who then bought a townhouse unit which was registered in her name. R then filed case against his wife on the ground of bigamy, during pendency, respondent filed a motion for the issuance of a restraining order against Evelyn and an application for a writ of a preliminary injunction to enjoin her from disposing or encumbering all of the properties registered in her name. Evelyn then obtained a loan from P and executed a real estate mortgage (REM) in favor of P over the townhouse unit which R filed annulment. Makati RTC Decision: dissolved the marriage between R and Evelyn; ordered liquidation of their properties PQUE RTC Decision: foreign national cannot own the mortgaged property CA Decision: annulled REM executed by Evelyn ISSUE: WON PQUE RTC’s decision is improper. HELD: Yes, jurisprudence holds that all acts done in violation of a standing injunction order are voidable, thus the party in whose favor the injunction is issued has the right to seek annulment of offending actions.