Article 116 and 117 of Family Code

 Section 3.  Conjugal Partnership Property

Article 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. (160a)

If there is a property that is acquired by onerous title during the marriage, there is a presumption of conjugality regardless of the source of funds used to acquire it. The presumption is not however, conclusive. It is rebuttable.

-Presumption of conjugality of properties of the husband and wife.

- Art. 1448 of the Civil Code provides

“There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.”

-that this presumption is not overcome by the fact that the property is registered in the name of the husband or the wife alone; and that the consent of both spouses is required before a conjugal property may be mortgaged (Art 124, F.C.)

- Under Art 153, F.C. there was an issue on the mortgaged condominium unit being a family home and not corporate property. Assuming arguendo that the mortgaged condominium unit constitutes a family home, the same will not exempt it from foreclosure as Art 155 of the same Code allows the execution of forced sale of a family home “ for debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution.”

-The presumption in favor of conjugality does not operate if there is no showing of when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. Moreover,the presumption may be rebutted only with strong,clear, categorical and convincing evidence. There must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership of one of the spouses, and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it.(GR No. 160762, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 107)

- When property is acquired during second marriage, the presumption is that it was acquired during the second marriage. Hence, the children of the first marriage cannot claim the property as the conjugal property of their mother and father (Mang-oy v CA, GR No. L-27421, September 12, 1986)

Case Digest:

G.R. No. 89667

JOSEPHINE B. BELCODERO vs THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

October 20, 1993, 227 SCRA 303

VITUG, J.

Facts:

This case involves the question of ownership over a piece ofproperty acquired by a husband living with a paramour and afterhaving deserted his lawful wife and children. Aloy Bosing was married to Juliana Oday in 1927 with whomhe had three (3) children. 

In 1946, he left the conjugal home andlived with Josefa Rivera with whom he begot a child named Josephine. In 1949, he purchased a parcel of land on installment with an indi-cated civil status “married to Josefa Bosing,” the common-law wife.

In 1955, he authorized the transfer of the property under Josefa alone,such that when the deed of sale was executed in 1959, the title wasplaced under Josefa alone. In 1958, he married Josefa even while hismarriage with Juliana was subsisting. He died in 1967, Josefa andJosephine executed an extrajudicial partition and sale in favor of Josephine, hence, a title was issued in favor of Josephine in 1974.

In 1980, his real wife/widow and their children filed an action for re-conveyance where the court ruled in their favor ordering Josephineto reconvey the property to his heirs. On appeal to the CA, the judg-ment was affirmed, hence, a petition for review was filed with theSupreme Court raising the issue as to who are the owners of theproperty. The Court ruled it to be conjugal and -

Issue:

Whether or not the properties are conjugal

Ruling:

Yes, the property belongs to the conjugal partnership of Aloy andJuliana together with their children. Under the law, all properties ofthe marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership,unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or tothe wife. (Article 160, NCC, now Article 92, Family Code). 

That fact that it was registered under the name of Josefa does not mean thatshe is the owner, especially so that the registration under her namewas upon request of Aloy. Furthermore, she implicitly recognized Aloy’s ownership when she and her daughter executed a deed of extrajudicial partition and sale over her share in the conjugal partnership with Aloy. 

The said adjudication would exactly conform with a partition in intestacy had they been the sole and legitimate heirs of the decedent.

It was further said that at the time that the adjudication ofownership was made following the demise of Aloy a constructive trust was created by operation of law in favor of Josephine. 

It was not created when he allowed the property to be titled under Josefa’s namesince the title was not adversarial to Aloy’s interest. Under the law,if a property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person ob-taining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trustfor the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. (Article1456, NCC).

Article 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:

1. Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;

2. Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses;

3. The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse;

4. The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the finder or owner of the property where the treasure is found;

5. Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;

6. Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the number of each kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and

7. Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or betting. However, losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. (153a, 154, 155, 159)

-Benefits obtained from the salaries of the spouses and their businesses are considered as conjugal properties of the husband and wife. The reason is that they were obtained thru labor or industry of a spouse during the marriage.

-Fruits of the common and separate properties of the spouses are conjugal properties.