Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr.

,
G.R. No. 164201, Dec. 10, 2012
Digested by: Derecho, April C.

Question: Spouses X and Y and others were prosecuted for murder. RTC rendered a
consolidated decision acquitting X of the charge for insufficiency of evidence but finding
Y and another persons guilty as charged and sentenced them to the penalty of death
and to pay each of the heirs of the victims, jointly and severally, P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 each as moral damages, and P150,000.00 actual damages.
Which was affirmed by the CA with modification. A writ was issued which resulted in the
levy of real properties registered in the names of spouses. Spouses filed a motion to
quash the writ of execution, claiming that the levied properties were conjugal assets, not
paraphernal assets of X hence it cannot be levied and executed upon because they
married before the effectivity of the Family Code. Spouses further contend that under
the Civil Code their default property regime is conjugal partnership of gains. Can
conjugal properties of spouses X and Y can be levied and executed upon for the
satisfaction of Y’s civil liability in the murder case.

Suggested Answer: Yes. While it is true that the personal stakes of each spouse in
their conjugal assets are inchoate or unclear prior to the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership of gains and, therefore, none of them can be said to have acquired vested
rights in specific assets, it is evident that Article 256 of the Family Code does not intend
to reach back and automatically convert into absolute community of property relation all
conjugal partnerships of gains that existed before 1988 excepting only those with
prenuptial agreements.

However, Article 105 of the Family Code contains terms governing conjugal partnership
of gains that supersede the terms of the conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil
Code.

Consequently, the Court must refer to the Family Code provisions in deciding whether
or not the conjugal properties of X and Y may be held to answer for the civil liabilities
imposed on Y in the murder case. Its Article 122 provides:

Art. 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife
before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties
partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.

Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged
to the partnership.

However, the payment of personal debts contracted by either spouse before the
marriage, that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them, as well as the
support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may be enforced against the
partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding Article
have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive
 property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of the
partnership, such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the
purpose above-mentioned.

Since X does not dispute the RTC’s finding that Y has no exclusive property of her own,
the above applies. The civil indemnity that the decision in the murder case imposed on
her may be enforced against their conjugal assets after the responsibilities enumerated
in Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered. Those responsibilities are as
follows:

Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:

(1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate
children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children
shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support;

(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the
designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the
consent of the other;

(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent
of the other to the extent that the family may have benefited;

(4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor
repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;

(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the
marriage upon the separate property of either spouse;

(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a

(7) Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to

(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of

(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to
be groundless.
 If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the
spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate
properties.

Contrary to X’s contention, Article 121 above allows payment of the criminal indemnities
imposed on his wife, Y, which "at the time of liquidation of the partnership, such
[offending] spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the purposes above-
mentioned."

Grande v. Antonio
G.R. No. 206248, Feb. 18, 2014
Digested by: Derecho, April C.

Question: A and B live together as husband and wife while B was still married. Their
illicit affair bore two sons X and Y. The children were not expressly recognized by
respondent as his own in the Record of Births of the children in the Civil Registry. When
their relationship turned sour, B left for the United States with her two children. This
prompted respondent A to file a Petition for Judicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer
to take Parental Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname of
Minors. The RTC RTC ruled that sole parental authority and physical custody should be
to A. However, CA reversed and grand custody to B with visitational rights to B.
However, CA further ordered that surname of A should be entered as surname of X and
Y in the Civil Registry. Can A compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children
upon his recognition of their filiation?

Suggested Answer: No. Art. 176 of RA No. 9255 provides that illegitimate children
shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and
shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children
may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by
their father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an
admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father.
Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove
nonfiliation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-
half of the legitime of a legitimate child.

However, jurisprudence dictates that Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to
decide if they want to use the surname of their father or not. It is not the father (herein
respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner) who is granted by law the right to dictate
the surname of their illegitimate children.