This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Article 160 of the 1950 Civil Code, the governing provision in effect at the time Bonifacio and Anita contracted marriage, provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or the wife. For the presumption to arise, it is not, as Tan v. Court of Appeals[9] teaches, even necessary to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. Only proof of acquisition during the marriage is needed to raise the presumption that the property is conjugal. In fact, even when the manner in which the properties were acquired does not appear, the presumption will still apply, and the properties will still be considered conjugal.[10] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In determining whether the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be taken into account. In Mariano v. Court of Appeals,[11] which was later adopted in Spouses Ching v. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court held that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a "stranger" to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.[13] On the other hand, in Naguit v. Court of Appeals[14] and Sy v. Discaya,[15] the Court stated that a spouse is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of execution was issued and is therefore justified in bringing an independent action to vindicate her right of ownership over his exclusive or paraphernal property. | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| To hold the conjugal partnership liable for an obligation pertaining to the husband alone defeats the objective of the Civil Code to protect the solidarity and well being of the family as a unit.[15] The underlying concern of the law is the conservation of the conjugal partnership.[16] Hence, it limits the liability of the conjugal partnership only to debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| 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.[24] Moreover, the presumption may be rebutted only with strong, clear, categorical and convincing evidence.[25] There must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership of one of the spouses,[26] and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it.[27] | |||||