Property issues between spouses (2)

In my column last week I discussed property relations between spouses. I was flooded with e-mails relating to the subject. For the benefit of all others who may be similarly situated, I shall  answer two of the more complicated questions here but will also discuss a Supreme Court decision clarifying how the properties between spouses should be settled when a marriage is declared void.

One question came from a Filipino Canadian. He said he succeeded in obtaining a divorce in Canada and married a Canadian to be able to stay and continue working there. His question: What happens to his marriage in the Philippines? Can his wife remarry now, too? What happens to the properties he and his wife acquired during their marriage which are now in the possession of his wife and son?

Since he was still a Filipino citizen at the time of obtaining a divorce in Canada, he still remains married to his Filipino spouse. This is because one’s personal laws follow him wherever he may be. In other words, his divorce and remarriage in Canada are void as far as our laws are concerned. Since he and his wife remain married to each other, their properties cannot be partitioned until one of them obtains a declaration of nullity of their marriage in Philippine courts. On the other hand, those who obtain a foreign citizenship before getting a divorce are in a different situation. Divorce, then, will be valid as to them but not as to their Filipino spouses. This is an incongruous situation which the framers of our family laws recognized. Thus, a remedy has been provided in the Family Code. The Filipino spouse may file a petition for the declaration of dissolution of their marriage based on the divorce filed by the foreign spouse under Article 26 of the Family Code. When granted, the Filipino spouse may re-marry. Their properties will be partitioned between them with a portion going to their offspring representing their future legitime or inheritance.

Another question came from a husband whose wife had left him ten years ago and had since lived abroad. He has no information where she is and whether or not she had divorced him as there has been no communication between them at all, he says. His question was, what should he do about his business transactions here which require the consent of his wife such as making a loan from banks; and selling or mortgaging a property registered in their names as spouses? The Family Code says that if a spouse—without just cause—abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the court may, upon application of the aggrieved spouse, issue a provisional order appointing him or a third person as receiver or sole administrator of the common property. With this, he may then sign documents alone as the administrator or receiver of the partnership. This is, of course, subject to precautionary conditions that the court may impose so that the rights of the absent spouse are also be protected. The present spouse who is appointed by the court as receiver, may not dispose of, or encumber any common property or specific separate property, without prior authority by the court.

The provisional order to be issued by the court shall be registered in the Register of Deeds and annotated in all the properties owned by the spouses.

As to spouses whose marriage eventually gets declared void ab initio, how are the properties owned by each of them before the marriage and those they acquired together, going to be divided?

In the case of Valdez vs. Regional Trial Court (GR no. 122749) the Supreme Court ruled that when a marriage is declared void, no matter what the cause, the properties of the couple shall be divided in accordance with the law on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code. What does this provision say? That during the cohabitation of a man and a woman who have no legal impediment to marry, their salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares. And so will the properties acquired by both of them through their work or industry during their living together. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. In the partition of properties, the children’s future legitime will also be given them.

Clearly, then, any property owned by each one prior to the marriage that has been voided—or prior to the parties’ cohabitation—necessarily reverts to whoever owned it. To my mind, this case is the answer to the many instances of injustice being committed in a regime of absolute community of property where one marries for the wealth the other has; and then obtains a nullity of marriage. For then, what will only be divided between the spouses will be those they acquired while living together, excluding any property previously owned by either spouse and brought into the partnership.

But as I have said in my last article, for couples who are genuinely in love, property relations do not even count as an issue. Whether they are governed by the regime of conjugal partnership or co-ownership, is immaterial. Every thing is absolutely and unqualifiedly shared between them, with or without a law mandating it. –Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno, Manila Standard Today

E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph