Conjugal Partnership; Property; The conjugal partnership arising from the crime of slander committed by the

must equally bear the indebtedness of the husband in spouse redounded to the benefit of the conjugal
pursuit of his career or profession and his losses from a partnership.—There is no dispute that contested
legitimate business.—The husband is the administrator property is conjugal in nature. Article 122 of the Family
of the conjugal partnership and as long as he believes he Code explicitly provides that payment of personal debts
is doing right to his family, he should not be made to contracted by the husband or the wife before or during
suffer and answer alone. So that, if he incurs an the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal
indebtedness in the legitimate pursuit of his career or partnership except insofar as they redounded to the
profession or suffers losses in a legitimate business, the benefit of the family. Unlike in the system of absolute
conjugal partnership must equally bear the indebtedness community where liabilities incurred by either spouse by
and the losses, unless he deliberately acted to the reason of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable to the
prejudice of his family. Such is the nature of the absolute community of property, in the absence or
judgment debt of private respondent Luis R. Narciso to insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-
petitioner. Consequently, the conjugal partnership of spouse, the same advantage is not accorded in the
gains of private respondents Narcisos, must answer for system of conjugal partnership of gains. The conjugal
the same. Necessarily the sale at public auction by the partnership of gains has no duty to make advance
Sheriff of Quezon City of TCT No. 120923 belonging to the payments for the liability of the debtor-spouse.
conjugal partnership of gains of the private respondents Parenthetically, by no stretch of imagination can it be
Narcisos in order to satisfy the judgment debt of the concluded that the civil obligation arising from the crime
private respondent Luis R. Narciso with petitioner, was of slander committed by Erlinda redounded to the
validly and legally made in accordance with law and not benefit of the conjugal partnership. Buado vs. Court of
legally assailable as held in the analogous case of Vda. de Appeals, 586 SCRA 397, G.R. No. 145222 April 24, 2009
Sta. Romana vs. Philippine Commercial and Industrial
Same; Same; Same; Same; Under Article 94 of the Family
Bank. G-Tractors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA
Code, the absolute community of property shall only be
192, No. L-57402 February 28, 1985
“liable for x x x [d]ebts and obligations contracted by
A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only when she either spouse without the consent of the other to the
purchases things necessary for the support of the family, extent that the family may have been benefited x x x.”—
or when she borrows money for that purpose upon her Consistent with our ruling that Rogelio solely entered
husband’s failure to deliver the needed sum; when into the contract of sale with petitioner and
administration of the conjugal partnership is transferred acknowledged receiving the entire consideration of the
to the wife by the courts or by the husband; or when the contract under the Deed of Absolute Sale, Shirley could
wife gives moderate donations for charity. Failure to not be held accountable to petitioner for the
establish any of these circumstances means that the reimbursement of her payment for the purchase of the
conjugal asset may not be bound to answer for the wife’s subject property. Under Article 94 of the Family Code,
personal obligation. Considering that the foregoing the absolute community of property shall only be “liable
circumstances are evidently not present in this case as for x x x [d]ebts and obligations contracted by either
the liability incurred by Michele arose from a judgment spouse without the consent of the other to the extent
rendered in an unlawful detainer case against her and that the family may have been benefited x x x.” As
her partner Matrai. Francisco vs. Gonzales<br/><br/>, correctly stated by the appellate court, there being no
565 SCRA 638, G.R. No. 177667 September 17, 2008 evidence on record that the amount received by Rogelio
redounded to the benefit of the family, respondent
Same; Same; Same; Same; Unlike in the system of
cannot be made to reimburse any amount to petitioner.
absolute community where liabilities incurred by either
Nobleza vs. Nuega, 752 SCRA 602, G.R. No. 193038
spouse by reason of a crime or quasi-delict is chargeable
March 11, 2015
to the absolute community of property, in the absence
or insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor- Same; Same; Same; Parties; Husband and Wife; Where
spouse, the same advantage is not accorded in the the petitioners were sued jointly, or as “Mr. and Mrs.”
system of conjugal partnership of gains; By no stretch of over a property in which they have a common interest,
imagination can it be concluded that the civil obligation the signing of one of them in the certification
substantially complies with the rule on certification of to give consent. In this case, the trial court found that the
non-forum shopping.—In the instant case, the Court of subject spouse “is an incompetent” who was in comatose
Appeals should have taken into consideration the fact or semi-comatose condition, a victim of stroke,
that the petitioners were sued jointly, or as “Mr. and cerebrovascular accident, without motor and mental
Mrs.” over a property in which they have a common faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct. In
interest. Such being the case, the signing of one of them such case, the proper remedy is a judicial guardianship
in the certification substantially complies with the rule on proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of
certification of non-forum shopping. Dar vs. Alonzo- Court. Uy vs. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 246, G.R. No.
Legasto, 339 SCRA 306, G.R. No. 143016 August 30, 2000 109557 November 29, 2000

Same; Same; Same; Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping; Same; Same; Absolute Community Property; Judicial
The certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed Separation of Properties; The grant of the judicial
by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the separation of the absolute community property
signing by only one of them is insufficient.—It has been automatically dissolves the absolute community regime,
our previous ruling that the certificate of non-forum as stated in the 4th paragraph of Article 99 of the Family
shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or Code.—Having established that Leticia and David had
plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of actually separated for at least one year, the petition for
them is insufficient. In the case of Efren Loquias, et al. vs. judicial separation of absolute community of property
Office of the Ombudsman, et al. we held that the signing should be granted. The grant of the judicial separation of
of the Verification and the Certification on Non-Forum the absolute community property automatically
Shopping by only one of the petitioners constitutes a dissolves the absolute community regime, as stated in
defect in the petition. The attestation contained in the the 4th paragraph of Article 99 of the Family Code, thus:
certification on non-forum shopping requires personal Art. 99. The absolute community terminates: (1) Upon
knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone the death of either spouse; (2) When there is a decree of
signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal legal separation; (3) When the marriage is annulled or
knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners declared void; or (4) In case of judicial separation of
of any action or claim the same as or similar to the property during the marriage under Articles 134 to 138.
current petition. To merit the Court’s consideration, Noveras vs. Noveras, 733 SCRA 528, G.R. No. 188289
petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to August 20, 2014
personally sign the certification. Docena vs. Lapesura,
“Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by
355 SCRA 658, G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001
death, the conjugal partnership property shall be
Actions; Guardianship; Family Code; Husband and Wife; liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of
Conjugal Partnership; Administration; The situation the estate of the deceased. If no judicial settlement
contemplated under Article 124 of the Family Code to be proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall
governed by summary judicial proceedings is one where liquidate the conjugal partnership property either
the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has judicially or extra-judicially within one year from the
abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six
obtained—such rules do not apply to cases where the month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or
non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership
to give consent, in which case the proper remedy is property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent
1964 Revised Rules of Court.—In regular manner, the marriage without compliance with the foregoing
rules on summary judicial proceedings under the Family requirements, a mandatory regime of complete
Code govern the proceedings under Article 124 of the separation of property shall govern the property
Family Code. The situation contemplated is one where relations of the subsequent marriage.”
the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has
Article 130 is to be read in consonance with Article 105
abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be
of the Family Code, viz.:
obtained. Such rules do not apply to cases where the
non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent
“Article 105. In case the future spouses agree in the Same; Same; Same; The party who invokes the
marriage settlements that the regime of conjugal presumption of Article 160 of the New Civil Code
partnership of gains shall govern their property relations provides that “all property of the marriage is presumed
during marriage, the provisions in this Chapter shall be of to belong to the conjugal partnership” must first prove
supplementary application. that the property in controversy was acquired during the
marriage—the presumption refers only to the property
The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal
acquired during the marriage and does not operate when
partnerships of gains already established between
there is no showing as to when property alleged to be
spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without
conjugal was acquired.—Article 160 of the New Civil
prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance
Code provides that “all property of the marriage is
with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless
256. (n)” [emphasis supplied] It is clear that conjugal
it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or
partnership of gains established before and after the
to the wife.” However, the party who invokes this
effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the rules
presumption must first prove that the property in
found in Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of Gains) of
controversy was acquired during the marriage. Proof of
Title IV (Property Relations Between Husband And Wife)
acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua
of the Family Code. Hence, any disposition of the
non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the
conjugal property after the dissolution of the conjugal
conjugal partnership. The party who asserts this
partnership must be made only after the liquidation;
presumption must first prove said time element.
otherwise, the disposition is void. Heirs of Protacio Go,
Needless to say, the presumption refers only to the
Sr. and Marta Barola vs. Servacio, 657 SCRA 10, G.R. No.
property acquired during the marriage and does not
157537 September 7, 2011
operate when there is no showing as to when property
Same; Same; Same; Elements of Article 147 of the Family alleged to be conjugal was acquired. Moreover, this
Code to apply.—For Article 147 of the Family Code to presumption in favor of conjugality is rebuttable, but
apply, the following elements must be present: (1) The only with strong, clear and convincing evidence; there
man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each must be a strict proof of exclusive ownership of one of
other; (2) They live exclusively with each other as the spouses. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA
husband and wife; and (3) Their union is without the 188, G.R. No. 102330 November 25, 1998
benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void. Diño vs.
Civil Law; Property; Co-Ownership; Marriage; The
Diño, 640 SCRA 178, G.R. No. 178044 January 19, 2011
presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code applies
Civil Law; Property; Conjugal Partnership; Presumption only when there is proof that the property was acquired
that all property of the marriage belong to the conjugal during the marriage.—The presumption under Article
partnership has not been convincingly rebutted.— 160 of the Civil Code applies only when there is proof
Whether the property in question was acquired by Alayo that the property was acquired during the marriage.
in 1949 when an agreement for its purchase on Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential
installment basis was entered into between him and condition for the operation of the presumption in favor
Magdalena Estate, Inc., or in 1959 when a deed of sale of the conjugal partnership. Manongsong vs. Estimo, 404
was finally executed by Magdalena Estate, Inc., the legal SCRA 683, G.R. No. 136773 June 25, 2003
results would be the same. The property remained as
Civil Law; Property; Conjugal Property; All property of the
belonging to the conjugal partnership of Alayo and his
marriage is presumed to be conjugal; Proof of acquisition
legitimate wife Juliana. Under both the new Civil Code
during the coverture is a condition sine qua non to the
(Article 160) and the old Civil Code (Article 1407), “all
operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal
property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
partnership.—All property of the marriage is presumed
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
to be conjugal. However, for this presumption to apply,
exclusively to the husband or to the wife.” This
the party who invokes it must first prove that the
presumption has not been convincingly rebutted.
property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of
Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 303, G.R. No.
acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua
89667 October 20, 1993
non to the operation of the presumption in favor of the
conjugal partnership. Thus, the time when the property
was acquired is material. Imani vs. Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Company, 635 SCRA 357, G.R. No. 187023
November 17, 2010

Civil Law; Property Relations; Conjugal Properties; All

property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to the wife.—Pertinent to
the resolution of this second issue is Article 160 of the
Civil Code which states that “[a]ll property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to the wife.” For this
presumption to apply, the party invoking the same must,
however, preliminarily prove that the property was
indeed acquired during the marriage. As held in Go v.
Yamane, 489 SCRA 107 (2006): x x x As a condition sine
qua non for the operation of [Article 160] in favor of the
conjugal partnership, the party who invokes the
presumption must first prove that the property was
acquired during the marriage. In other words, the
presumption in favor of conjugality does not operate if
there is no showing of when the property alleged to be
conjugal was acquired. Moreover, the presumption may
be rebutted only with strong, clear, categorical and
convincing evidence. There must be strict proof of the
exclusive ownership of one of the spouses, and the
burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it. Tan vs.
Andrade, 703 SCRA 198, G.R. No. 171904 August 7, 2013