Co-ownership presumed in void marriages
Last week, I wrote about the partition of properties that follows after the marriage between spouses is declared null and void. As discussed then, whatever property regime (absolute community, conjugal partnership or complete separation) the parties followed during marriage will not come into play once the marriage is annulled. This is so because as expressly declared by Article 147 of the Family Code, properties acquired during cohabitation after the same has been declared null, shall be considered co-owned by the parties. By co-ownership means, the once-married spouses now own them fifty-fifty. But note that said provision of the law expressly states that “in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.” From the above, co-ownership is a disputable presumption. So for as long as a party proves otherwise, the fifty-fifty presumption will not be upheld by the courts. Ok, so what if during the marriage, husband A buys a house. In the title, the registered owner is only him, although it explicitly states that he is married to his wife B. B, on the other hand, purchases a condominium unit. The title this time bears only her name as the registered owner, without even any express mention that she is married to A. Let us just say that one day, one of them obtains a declaration of nullity of their marriage and partition of property follows. So we all know that whatever properties they obtained during the time they lived together will be co-owned by them, correct? Yes, that is right. But can A claim that the house he bought is his alone as borne by the title itself. Had they, A and B, jointly bought them, then the registered owners should be them both. Following that argument, can B now claim that her title to the condominium unit is enough proof to show that it was acquired solely through her efforts? Well as things seem, yes; the presumption of co-ownership has been overcome. And necessarily, the house must go to A alone while the condominium to B exclusively. Will this be a correct interpretation of the provisions of the Family Code? Here is how the Supreme Court resolved the issue in Virginia Ocampo v. Deogracio Ocampo (G.R. No. 198908 promulgated on 3 August 2015). “From the foregoing, property acquired by both parties through their work and industry should, therefore, be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed to the same jointly if said party’s efforts consisted of the care and maintenance of the family household. Efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry. In the instant case, both the trial and appellate courts agreed that the subject properties were in fact acquired during the marriage of Virginia and Deogracio. We give due deference to factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case. A reversal of this finding can only occur if petitioners show sufficient reason for us to doubt its correctness. There is none, in this case. Likewise, we note that the former spouses both substantially agree that they acquired the subject properties during the subsistence of their marriage. The certificates of titles and tax declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code. All properties acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name the properties are registered, are presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise. The presumption is not rebutted by the mere fact that the certificate of title of the property or the tax declaration is in the name of one of the spouses only. Article 116 expressly provides that the presumption remains even if the property is ‘registered in the name of one or both of the spouses’. Thus, the failure of Virginia to rebut this presumption, said properties were obtained by the spouses’ joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be jointly owned by them in equal shares. Accordingly, the partition of the former spouses’ properties on the basis of co-ownership, as ordered by the RTC and the appellate court, should be affirmed.” Clear as day then. The fact that a title is solely in the name of a spouse does not overcome the presumption of co-ownership. It takes more than that. What then is needed to overcome the presumption? Consult your counsel. The quoted provision of the decision is from the case mentioned above. The post Co-ownership presumed in void marriages appeared first on Daily Tribune......»»
Six presumed dead after ship destroys major US bridge
Authorities on Tuesday suspended their search for six people missing after a packed cargo ship slammed into a Baltimore bridge, causing it to collapse and blocking one of the busiest US commercial harbors......»»
Boulevard Holdings sells 1.5-B shares to ownership group
Boulevard Holdings advised that its stockholders approved a measure to increase BHI’s authorized capital stock from 17 billion shares to 18.5 billion shares, and to sell the 1.5 billion shares to a company called Puerto Azul Landn Inc., which is also owned and controlled by the Panlilio family......»»