Article 88, 89 and 90 of Family Code

Art. 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)

This law erased the anomalous situation in Article 145 of the Civil Code which provides that the conjugal partnership shall commence precisely on the date of the celebration of the marriage. 

If we are to interpret it literally, then even before the actual celebration of the marriage, the parties already have a property relationship in operation.

For example, A and B’s marriage will be solemnized at 7 o’clock in the evening of December 9, 1999, does it mean that as early as 7 o’clock in the morning of that day, they are already governed by a property relationship? 

That would be anomalous since a property can be acquired by onerous title prio to the marriage would be considered as part of the property relationship. The present law has clarified the doubt and the possible anomalous situation by saying that the absolute community of property shall commence at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated.

Art. 89. No waiver of rights, interest, shares and effects of the absolute community of property during the marriage can be made except in the case of judicial separation of property. 

When the waiver takes place upon a judicial separation of property, or after the marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall be recorded as provided in Article 77. The creditors of the spouse who made such waiver may petition to the court to rescind the waiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. (146a)

The law confines to the fact that during the existence of the marriage, there can be no changes in the property relationship. In order that there may be modifications of the same, they must be done prior to the celebration of the marriage; otherwise, the same would be void, except if they are done by judicial action. Such modifications include any waiver of rights, interests, shares and effects of the absolute community of properties.

Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership shall apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters not provided for in this Chapter. (n)

The law provides for the property regime in case of common-law relationships or void marriages. In fact, the Supreme Court in Valdez v RTC of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996, 72 SCAD 967, said that the property relationship in void marriages ab initio is co-ownership and if ever there is a declaration of nullity of a void marriage, even if based on psychological incapacity, the dissolution of the properties or distribution shall be based on the law on co-ownership where the parties shall be share and share alike. 

It shall be noted, however, that the law abhors cohabitation in violation of the marriage vows. If frowns upon immorality. It protects the legitimate family, for if the other party in a cohabitation like in Agapay were allowed to get one-half of the properties upon termination of such relationship even without any material contribution, then, it would countenance immorality aside from causing undue prejudice to the legitimate family.

Case:

G.R. No. 122749

Valdez v RTC of Quezon City, et al.

July 31, 1996, 72 SCAD 967

Vitug, J.

Facts:

Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on 05 January 1971. Begotten during the marriage were five children. In a petition, dated 22 June 1992, Valdez sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family code (docketed Civil Case No. Q-92-12539, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102). 

Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification of that portion of the decision directing compliance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code. She asserted that the Family Code contained no provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in "unions without marriage." Parenthetically, during the hearing of the motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing their desire to remain with their father, Antonio Valdez, herein petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner’s contention is correct

Ruling:

No, considering that Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the property acquired by both parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them in equal shares, plaintiff and defendant will own their "family home" and all their properties for that matter in equal shares.

In the liquidation and partition of properties owned in common by the plaintiff and defendant, the provisions on ownership found in the Civil Code shall apply.

This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. The term "capacitated" in the provision (in the first paragraph of the law) refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage, i.e., any "male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38"7 of the Code.