Chapter 3: Property Relations Between Husband and Wife o Be signed before marriage.

(Articles 74-87, Family Code of the Philippines) o Be written, signed, and notarized.

Article 74. Property Relations Between Spouses Article 77. Applicability of Marriage Settlements

Text: The property relationship between husband and wife shall be Text: The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall
governed in the following order: be recorded in the local civil registry where the marriage contract
is recorded.
1. By marriage settlements executed before the marriage.
Explanation:
2. By the provisions of this Code.

3. By the local custom. • Public Record: For transparency, marriage settlements

must be recorded in the civil registry. This prevents
Explanation: disputes by making the couple’s property arrangements
public.
• Marriage Settlement: This is a formal agreement
between the couple before marriage regarding how they
will handle their properties. It is the top priority. Article 78. Absolute Community of Property

• Family Code Provisions: If there’s no marriage Text: In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime
settlement, the law’s default rules apply. agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property
as established in this Code shall govern.
• Customs: If both a marriage settlement and laws are
silent, local customs may influence property relations. Explanation:

• Default Regime: If there’s no marriage settlement, the

law assumes the absolute community of property,
Article 75. Marriage Settlements where all assets become shared by both spouses.
Text: The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree
upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of
gains, complete separation of property, or any other system that the Article 79. What Constitutes Community Property
law allows.
Text: The community property shall consist of all the property
Explanation: owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage
or acquired thereafter.
• Choice of Property Regime: Couples can choose how
to manage their property. Options include: Explanation:

o Absolute Community of Property: All • Scope of Community Property: All property, owned
assets are owned jointly after marriage. or acquired during marriage, becomes part of the joint
estate, regardless of whose name is on the title.
o Conjugal Partnership of Gains: Each
spouse retains ownership of what they
owned before marriage, but gains during
marriage are shared. Article 80. Exclusions from Community Property

o Separation of Property: Each spouse Text: The following shall be excluded from the community
manages their own assets independently. property:

1. Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous

title by either spouse.
Article 76. Formal Requirements of Marriage Settlements
2. Property for personal and exclusive use of each spouse.
Text: In order that any modification in the property relations
between husband and wife may be valid, it must be made before 3. Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse
the celebration of the marriage and must be in writing, signed by who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage.
the parties, and executed before a notary public.
Explanation:
Explanation:
• Separate Assets: Gifts, inheritances, personal items,
• Formalities for Validity: To be legally binding, a and assets acquired before marriage (if the spouse has
marriage settlement should: children from a previous marriage) are not shared.
Article 81. Waiver of Rights Article 85. Debts of the Absolute Community

Text: Neither spouse may renounce any inheritance or donation Text: All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage
made jointly in their favor before the marriage is dissolved or shall be considered community obligations unless specified
annulled. otherwise.

Explanation: Explanation:

• Protection of Joint Gifts/Inheritance: Any inheritance • Shared Debts: Debts taken on during the marriage are
or gift given to both spouses cannot be renounced by jointly owed by both spouses unless otherwise
either until the marriage ends. This ensures joint specified.
ownership of shared gifts/inheritance.

Article 86. Charges Upon and Obligations of the Absolute

Article 82. Effect of Nullity of Marriage Community

Text: If a marriage is declared void, the property relations between Text: The absolute community of property shall be liable for:
the spouses shall be governed by the provisions of Article 147 or
148 of this Code. 1. Support of the family.

Explanation: 2. Debts and obligations contracted by the administration

of the community property.
• Void Marriages: For marriages declared null and void,
3. Taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or
special rules apply to property division, depending on
minor repairs upon the community property.
whether the marriage was putative or void due to other
reasons. 4. Support in favor of the legitimate children of either
spouse.

Explanation:
Article 83. When Community Property Regime Commences

Text: The absolute community of property between spouses shall • Community Expenses: These include family support,
commence at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated. taxes, repairs, and support for legitimate children. The
community property funds are prioritized for these
Explanation: needs.

• Start of Community Property: The joint ownership of

property starts right at marriage. Any property owned
Article 87. Donations by Reason of Marriage
by either spouse at that moment becomes jointly
owned. Text: Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or
indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void,
except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on
Article 84. Debts Prior to Marriage special occasions.

Text: Debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage shall Explanation:
not be charged against the community property.
• Restrictions on Spousal Gifts: Gifts between spouses
Explanation: are generally void to prevent unfair transfer of wealth.
Small gifts for special occasions (e.g., birthdays,
• Exclusion of Prior Debts: Debts owed before marriage anniversaries) are allowed.
remain the responsibility of the spouse who incurred
them. They do not become shared obligations.
IV. Property Relations Between Husband and Wife (Articles 74-87, Family Code)

Cases:
1. Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012

This case concerns the property relations between husband and wife, specifically addressing the execution
of conjugal properties for the civil liabilities resulting from a criminal conviction. The Supreme Court
evaluated whether the conjugal properties of Efren Pana and his wife, Melecia Pana, could be levied to
satisfy the civil indemnities imposed on Melecia following her conviction for murder. The Court ruled that
the conjugal properties could indeed be levied, contingent upon the coverage of certain responsibilities
under the Family Code, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals while modifying the requirements
for execution.

Facts:
Efren Pana (Petitioner) and Melecia Pana, married prior to the enactment of the Family Code, were
accused alongside others of murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City (Criminal Cases 4232
and 4233). On July 9, 1997, the RTC acquitted Efren but found Melecia guilty, sentencing her to death and
ordering her to pay civil indemnities and damages to the victims' heirs. The Court later modified this
sentence on May 24, 2001, reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua and affirming certain monetary
awards, which became final on October 1, 2001. Following a motion for execution filed by the heirs of the
victims, the RTC levied their conjugal properties on March 12, 2002. Efren contested the levy, arguing that
the properties were conjugal assets and not Melecia's separate properties. The RTC denied the motion,
leading Efren to seek relief from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition, prompting him to
appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:
The main issue was whether the conjugal properties of Efren and Melecia Pana could be levied to satisfy
Melecia's civil liabilities resulting from her criminal conviction.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the conjugal properties could be levied for the civil indemnities owed by
Melecia, provided that the liabilities as outlined in Article 121 of the Family Code were addressed first.
The Court clarified that while Efren and Melecia were married before the Family Code took effect, their
property regime was governed by the Civil Code’s conjugal partnership of gains. The Court emphasized
that the Family Code does not retroactively convert such marriages into an absolute community of
property without explicit agreements to that effect.

The rationale behind the ruling emphasized the protection of vested rights under the Civil Code. The Court
explained that while personal stakes in conjugal assets may not be clear prior to liquidation, the
conversion of their property regime would impair these rights. Consequently, liabilities arising from
criminal acts committed by one spouse can be enforced against the conjugal properties if the other spouse
does not possess sufficient separate property.

Legal Basis:

The decision referenced the following legal provisions:

 • Article 256 of the Family Code regarding retroactive application without impairing vested rights.

• Article 76 of the Family Code on the immutability of marriage settlements post-marriage.

• Article 142 of the Civil Code defining the nature of the conjugal partnership of gains.

• Article 122 of the Family Code, which permits the enforcement of personal debts against conjugal
properties after addressing specific responsibilities.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the execution against the conjugal properties for Melecia's civil
liabilities, confirming that obligations arising from criminal acts can affect community assets as delineated
in the Family Code. This ruling highlights the intersection of personal liability and property rights within
marital relations.
2. Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003

This case involves a petition for review filed by Romana Locquiao Valencia and Constancia L. Valencia
(hereinafter "the petitioners") against Benito A. Locquiao, now deceased and substituted by his heirs
Jimmy Locquiao and Tomasa Mara, as well as the Registrar of Deeds of Pangasinan (hereinafter "the
respondents"). The core issue revolves around the validity of a donation propter nuptias executed by the
spouses Herminigildo and Raymunda Locquiao in favor of their son Benito and his wife Tomasa. The
petitioners challenged the authenticity of the donation, the necessity of acceptance by the donees, and
the grounds for prescription and laches in the context of property relations under the Family Code (Articles
74-87). Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, ruling against the
petitioners due to the invalidity of their claims based on procedural and substantive grounds.

Facts:
The case centers on a parcel of land measuring 4,876 square meters in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, originally
owned by Herminigildo and Raymunda Locquiao, evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 183838
issued on October 3, 1917. On May 22, 1944, the couple executed a deed of donation propter nuptias in
favor of their son Benito Locquiao and his prospective bride, Tomasa Mara, which was inscribed in their
marriage registration. Following the deaths of Herminigildo and Raymunda in 1962 and 1968, respectively,
their estate was divided among their six children. Romana Valencia cultivated the disputed land with the
consent of Benito and Tomasa until her daughter Constancia took over in 1977. The donation was
registered on May 15, 1970, leading to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 84897. Disputes
over the land's ownership culminated in petitions for annulment and ejectment, resulting in a joint
decision by the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' claims based on prescription and laches. The Court
of Appeals upheld these decisions, emphasizing that the donation was valid and that the petitioners’
actions were barred by the lapse of time.

Issues:

1. Whether the donation propter nuptias is authentic.

2. Whether acceptance of the donation by the donees is required and, if so, in what form it should
appear.

3. Whether the action for annulment of title is barred by prescription and laches.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, affirming the validity of the donation propter nuptias
and finding that their claims were barred by both prescription and laches. The Court held that the
execution of the donation did not require formal acceptance as the marriage itself constituted implied
acceptance, in accordance with Article 1330 of the Old Civil Code.

Rationale:
The Court's rationale hinged on the application of the Old Civil Code, which governed the formal
requirements for donations propter nuptias at the time the donation was executed. It clarified that the
mere absence of a notarial record does not invalidate the authenticity of the deed, stating, "the failure of
the notary public to furnish a copy of the deed to the appropriate office is a ground for disciplining him,
but certainly not for invalidating the document or for setting aside the transaction therein involved."
Additionally, the Court emphasized the necessity of filing claims within a prescribed period, stating that
the petitioners' action for reconveyance was time-barred as it was filed over forty years after the
execution of the deed. The ruling concluded that the parties involved had constructive knowledge of the
donation since its registration, which further supported the application of laches due to their inaction over
a significant period despite being aware of the circumstances. The relevant legal provisions cited include
Articles 1330 and 1403 of the Old Civil Code, and the principles surrounding prescription as established in
prior case law.

Legal Basis:

• Old Civil Code (Articles 1330, 1403)

• Family Code (Articles 74-87)

• Case Law on prescription and laches principles

Petitioners: Romana Locquiao Valencia and Constancia L. Valencia

Respondents: Benito A. Locquiao (now deceased, substituted by Jimmy Locquiao and Tomasa Mara) and
the Registrar of Deeds of Pangasinan
3. Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971

In the case of Cornelia Matabuena v. Petronila Cervantes, decided on March 31, 1971 (G.R. No. L-28771),
the Supreme Court addressed the validity of a donation made between parties in a common-law
relationship under the provisions of the Civil Code concerning property relations between husband and
wife. The Court ruled that such donations are void, applying the prohibition against donations between
spouses during marriage to those living in a common-law relationship. The decision overturned a lower
court ruling that had recognized the validity of a donation made prior to the legal marriage of Felix
Matabuena and Petronila Cervantes.

Facts: Felix Matabuena, the deceased, entered into a common-law relationship with Petronila Cervantes
before marrying her on March 28, 1962. During their cohabitation, on February 20, 1956, he executed a
Deed of Donation inter vivos, granting a parcel of land to Cervantes. Following Matabuena's death on
September 13, 1962, his sister, Cornelia Matabuena, sought to claim ownership of the land, arguing that
the donation was void under Article 133 of the Civil Code, which prohibits donations between spouses
during marriage. The trial court initially upheld the donation's validity, asserting that since the marriage
occurred six years after the donation, the couple was not legally married at the time of the donation. The
case then went to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the prohibition against donations between spouses during marriage extends to parties
in a common-law relationship.

2. Whether the donation made by Felix Matabuena to Petronila Cervantes is valid.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cornelia Matabuena, declaring the donation to Petronila
Cervantes void. The Court emphasized that the same policy considerations that underpin the prohibition
of donations between spouses during marriage should similarly apply to common-law relationships.
Consequently, the donation was deemed against public policy, and both parties were recognized as heirs
to the property in question, each entitled to half of the inheritance.

Rationale: Justice Fernando, writing for the Court, articulated that the rationale behind the prohibition
against donations during marriage is rooted in concerns over undue influence and moral integrity within
marital relationships. The ruling referenced a previous decision (Buenaventura v. Bautista) affirming that
such prohibitions are essential to prevent the potential exploitation inherent in relationships that lack the
formalities of marriage. The Court stated, "if it is at all to be differentiated, the policy of the law...would
be nullified if such irregular relationship instead of being visited with disabilities would be attended with
benefits," highlighting the necessity for the law to maintain a consistent moral standard regardless of the
nature of the relationship. Thus, the conclusion was reached that allowing donations under these
circumstances would contradict the foundational principles of family law as established in the Civil Code.

Legal Basis: The ruling primarily relied on Article 133 of the Civil Code, which renders void donations made
between spouses during marriage, and it applied this prohibition to common-law partnerships. The Court
reinforced that the essence of marriage as a cornerstone of family law necessitates that similar restrictions
apply to concubinage, thereby protecting the integrity of familial relations and property rights.
Parties:

• Petitioner: Cornelia Matabuena

• Respondent: Petronila Cervantes

Presiding Justice: Justice Fernando

4. Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001

This case revolves around a deed of donation executed by Francisco T. Comille in favor of Cirila Arcaba,
his alleged common-law wife. The respondents, Francisco's nieces and nephews, contended that the
donation violated Article 87 of the Family Code, which prohibits donations between persons cohabiting
as husband and wife without a valid marriage. The Regional Trial Court declared the deed void, a decision
upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, confirming
that the donation was void as Francisco and Cirila were living together as common-law spouses, thereby
violating Article 87.

Facts:

Francisco T. Comille and his wife Zosima Montallana acquired a property (Lot No. 437-A) in Dipolog City
on January 16, 1956. After Zosima’s death on October 3, 1980, Francisco became the sole owner of the
property. Francisco, childless and elderly, was assisted by Cirila Arcaba, a widow who lived with him and
took care of his needs. Testimonies provided differing accounts of their relationship: some witnesses
claimed they were lovers, while Cirila asserted she was only his caregiver. However, evidence suggested
that Cirila and Francisco cohabited, and documents showed Cirila using Francisco’s surname, indicating a
common-law relationship.

On January 24, 1991, Francisco donated a portion of his property (150 square meters) to Cirila as a reward
for her service over ten years. After Francisco’s death on October 4, 1991, his relatives sought to annul
the donation, alleging it was void under Article 87, as Cirila was Francisco's common-law wife. The trial
court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the donation void, a decision later affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the deed of donation inter vivos executed by Francisco Comille in favor of Cirila
Arcaba is valid under Article 87 of the Family Code.

2. Whether or not the petitioner, Cirila Arcaba, can be considered Francisco Comille’s common-
law spouse.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the donation inter vivos made by Francisco in favor of Cirila was void under
Article 87 of the Family Code, which states that any gratuitous transfer between parties living together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage is void.

Rationale:

The Court concluded that Cirila and Francisco were common-law spouses based on the preponderance of
evidence. The testimonies and documents, including Cirila’s use of Francisco’s surname in official permits
and her reference as Francisco's common-law spouse in other cases, indicated that their relationship was
more than that of caregiver and patient. Additionally, Cirila’s lack of regular wages suggested a deeper
personal relationship rather than an employer-employee relationship.
The Court cited Bitangcor v. Tan to clarify that "living together as husband and wife" encompasses more
than mere cohabitation; it includes public assumption of a marital relationship, implying a level of
exclusivity and intimacy. Since the law under Article 87 intends to prohibit certain property transfers
between cohabiting partners, Francisco's donation to Cirila was deemed void, as it circumvented legal
protections surrounding spousal property relations.

Legal Basis:

Article 87 of the Family Code states:

"Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the
marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of
any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife
without a valid marriage."

The Court emphasized that the intent of Article 87 is to prevent indirect transfers of property that could
unfairly benefit one partner in a common-law union at the expense of legitimate heirs. Francisco’s
donation was invalidated under this provision, protecting the property rights of Francisco’s legal heirs.

Disposition:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring the deed of donation inter
vivos void. Cirila Arcaba was ordered to return possession of the donated property to the respondents.
5. Perez Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida, G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021

In G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of property relations in a
cohabitation setting under Article 147 of the Family Code in Nicxon L. Perez, Jr. v. Avegail Perez-Senerpida,
assisted by her husband, Mr. Senerpida. The dispute arose over a property donation made by Eliodoro Q.
Perez to his grandson Nicxon without his wife Adelita’s consent. The primary issues concerned the
property regime applicable to Eliodoro and Adelita’s relationship following a void marriage declaration
and the legality of the subsequent donations and waivers affecting their co-owned property. The Supreme
Court ruled that Eliodoro and Adelita’s property should be governed by co-ownership rules, rendering
both the Renunciation and Waiver of Rights (RWR) by Adelita and the Deed of Donation (DoD) to Nicxon
void, as they violated Article 87 and Article 147 of the Family Code. The Court further nullified Nicxon’s
title to the property, reinstating it as a co-owned asset between Eliodoro and Adelita.

Facts:

Eliodoro Q. Perez and Adelita M. Perez were married on December 10, 1975, and acquired a property in
Olongapo City. On October 29, 1995, Adelita executed an RWR in favor of Eliodoro, which was later
inscribed on the title. Subsequently, on July 27, 2004, Eliodoro, without Adelita’s consent, donated this
property to his grandson, Nicxon L. Perez, Jr. However, the marriage between Eliodoro and Adelita was
declared void ab initio on June 15, 2005, under Article 36 of the Family Code, with the judgment becoming
final on July 6, 2005.
Following Eliodoro’s death on June 28, 2008, Avegail Perez-Senerpida, Eliodoro and Adelita’s daughter,
filed a case to annul the RWR, the DoD, and Nicxon’s title, arguing that her mother’s property rights were
undermined. The trial court ruled in Avegail’s favor, annulling both the RWR and the DoD. Nicxon
appealed, contending the RWR and DoD were valid, citing the finality of the nullity judgment and his
grandfather’s autonomy over the property.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the marriage nullity judgment between Eliodoro and Adelita affects the
property regime, making it governed by co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code.

2. Whether or not the Renunciation and Waiver of Rights executed by Adelita is valid.

3. Whether or not the Deed of Donation by Eliodoro to Nicxon is valid.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court, presided by Justice Caguioa, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, declaring that
the marriage nullity judgment rendered the property acquired by Eliodoro and Adelita during their
cohabitation subject to co-ownership under Article 147. Both the RWR and the DoD were voided due to
the lack of mutual consent required for property disposition in a cohabitation scenario under Article 87
and Article 147.

Rationale:
The Court reasoned that, due to the void nature of Eliodoro and Adelita’s marriage, their property
relations were governed by co-ownership rather than absolute community property (ACP) or conjugal
partnership of gains (CPG). Article 147 of the Family Code specifies that neither party in a cohabitation
may dispose of their share in co-owned property without the other’s consent. Eliodoro’s donation to
Nicxon was made without Adelita’s consent, thus invalidating the DoD. Furthermore, the Court invoked
Article 87, prohibiting gratuitous transfers between individuals living together as husband and wife
without a valid marriage, to invalidate the RWR.
The Court highlighted that, while Article 493 of the Civil Code allows a co-owner to alienate their portion
in typical co-ownership arrangements, Article 147’s special co-ownership provision in the Family Code
overrides this. Consequently, any property acquired during the cohabitation required joint consent to
dispose of it legally. The decision to annul the titles and reinstate them as co-owned properties by Eliodoro
and Adelita aligned with the intent to maintain equity and prevent undue pressure in relationships outside
valid marriage.

Legal Basis:

• Article 36, Family Code: Grounds for nullifying a marriage due to psychological incapacity.
• Article 147, Family Code: Governs property relations in void marriages or cohabitation,
mandating shared ownership and requiring mutual consent for disposition.
• Article 87, Family Code: Prohibits donations between individuals cohabitating as spouses without
marriage.
• Article 493, Civil Code: Governs co-ownership but is subordinate to Article 147 in cohabitation
contexts.

Disposition:
The Court upheld the annulment of the RWR, DoD, and title in Nicxon’s name, ordering the Registry of
Deeds to cancel the existing title and issue a new one under the names of Eliodoro Q. Perez and Adelita
M. Perez as co-owners. This preserved their co-ownership status under Article 147 and protected both
parties' rights in their cohabitative property relations.