FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Article 88. The absolute community of property between spouses shall commence at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated. Any stipulation, express or implied, for the commencement of the community regime at any other time shall be void. (145a) EXPLANATION: Absolute Community of Property In this property regime, the husband and the wife are  co-owners   of all properties they bring into the marriage (those that they owned before the marriage), as well as the properties acquired during the marriage, except for certain properties express excluded by law. Commencement This system commences at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated, and any stipulation for the commencement of the community regime at any other time is void. This law omitted the annomalous situation in Article 145 of the Civil Code provided that the conjugal property with partnership shall commence precisely on the date of the celebration of marriage What constitutes ...

Ancheta vs. Ancheta CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004 Annulment of Marriage, Civil Law, Marriage FACTS: Petitioner Marietta Ancheta and respondent Rodolfo Ancheta were married on March 5, 1959 and had eight children. After 33 years of marriage the petitioner left the respondent and their children. Their conjugal properties were later separated through a court-sanctioned compromise agreement where the petitioner got among others a resort in Cavite. When the husband wanted to marry again, he filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity on June 5, 1995. Although he knew that the petitioner was already residing at the resort in Cavite, he alleged in his petition that the petitioner was residing at Las Piñas, Metro Manila, such that summons never reached her. Nevertheless substituted service was rendered to their son at his residence in Cavite. ...

Gelano vs CA Case Digest ] Facts:  Insular Sawmill, Inc. (ISI) is a corporation organized on 17 September 1945 with a corporate life of 50 years, or up to 17 September 1995, with the primary purpose of carrying on a general lumber and sawmill business. To carry on this business, ISI leased the paraphernal property of Carlos Gelano's wife Guillermina Mendoza-Gelano at the corner of Canonigo and Otis, Paco, Manila for P1,200.00 a month. It was while ISI was leasing the aforesaid property that its officers and directors had come to know Carlos Gelano who received from the corporation cash advances on account of rentals to be paid by the corporation on the land. Between 19 November 1947 to 26 December 1950 Carlos Gelano obtained from ISI cash advances of P25,950.00. The said sum was taken and received by Carlos Gelano on the agreement that ISI could deduct the same from the monthly rentals of the leased premises until said cash advances are fully paid. Out of the a...

Related case Article 65 family code of the Philippines MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, MANUEL GERVACIO BLAS, LEONCIO GERVACIO BLAS and LOIDA GERVACIO BLAS,   Plaintiffs-Appellants , vs. ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the deceased MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, in Sp. Proc. No. 2524, Court of First Instance of Rizal,   defendants-appellants . MARTA GERVACIO BLAS and DR. JOSE CHIVI,   Defendants-Appellants . LABRADOR,  J .: FACTS:  This action was instituted by plaintiffs against the administration of the estate of Maxima Santos, to secure a judicial declaration that one-half of the properties left by Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, the greater bulk of which are set forth and described in the project of partition presented in the proceedings for the administration of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas, had been promised by the deceased Maxima Santos to be delivered upon her death and in her will to the plaintiffs, and requ...

Article 65 If the spouses should reconcile, a corresponding joint manifestation under   oath duly signed by them shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for legal separation. Explanation: In this joint manifestation of the couple, it is important that both parties sign this legal document to signify and formalize their mutual intention and consent to legally live together again as husband and wife.  It can be seen from the above-cited provisions that the law recognizes and allows legally separated couples, like your daughter and her husband, to reconcile and legally live again as a married couple. Therefore , to prepare the joint manifestation together with her husband and file it before the court to legalize their reconciliation as husband and wife.

  Legitime literally means the forced share or forced portion. It refers to that portion of a parent’s property that would bequeath upon the children of a deceased by law. A legitime is only a fraction of the entire property of the deceased. The parent’s property that bequeaths on the children is fixed by law. Thus a testator cannot disinherit his/her children from legitime without reasonable and sufficient cause.  

Pari Delicto - Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition of the possessor) However Ex delicto - Latin for "from a wrong" or "from a transgression," is also a legal term that indicates a consequence of a tort

a case filed by a person asking a Judge to punish another person for violating a court order

ALIUNDE - A CERTAIN DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL UNDER CONSIDERATION

ARTICLE 49 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE PROVISION IN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SPOUSES, THE COURT SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPORT OF SPOUSES AND THE CUSTODY AND SUPPORT OF THEIR COMMON CHILDREN. THE COURT SHALL GIVE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION TO THE MORAL AND MATERIAL WELFARE OF SAID CHILDREN AND THEIR CHOICE OF THE PARENT WITH WHOM THEY WISH TO REMAIN AS PROVIDED FOR IN TITLE IX. IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE VISITATION RIGHTS OF THEIR PARENTS. RULES TO BE FOLLOWED IN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OR NULLITY OF MARRIAGE: ARTICLE 49 THE FAMILY CODE OUTLINES THE THINGS THAT THE COURT SHALL DO DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGES SUCH AS: 1.PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE CHILDREN AND THE SPOUSES 2.PROVIDE THE CUSTODY OF THE  COMMON CHILDREN 3.GIVE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION TO THE MORAL AND MATERIAL  WELFARE OF THE CHILD...

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR. AND RICHARD UPTON, respondents. No. L-68470.      October 8, 1985. Facts: Petitioner Alicia Reyes Van is citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States, were married on 1972 at Hongkong. On 1982, they got divorced in Nevada, United States; and the petitioner remarried to Theodore Van Dorn. On July 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner, asking that the petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila, and be declared with right to manage the  conjugal  property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous  judgement  in the divorce proceeding before Nevada Court where respondent acknowledged that they had no  community property. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the property i...

TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653 FACTS: Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany.  They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling.  Conjugal disharmony eventuated   in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983. The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.  The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints fo...

REPUBLIC VS ORBECIDO G.R. No. 154380October 5, 2005 FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III was married to Lady Myros Villanueva and blessed with two kids. Both lives  in Lam-an, Ozamis City. In 1986 Orbecido found out  that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. Sometime in 2000, Orbecido learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and married an American. Orbecido filed with the Trial Court a petition for “Authority to Remarry” appealing Article 26 Paragraph 2 of the Family Code, then Court granted the petition. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought for reconsideration but it was denied by the Trial Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the allegations of the respondent was proven as a fact according to the rules of evidence. HELD: In the present petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondent’s bare allegations that ...