Property issues between spouses

In the recent months, I have somewhat been besieged by clients on the verge of bitter separations. And believe it or not, the bitterness, the angst and the spite mostly centered on issues of property rather than what went wrong in their relationship that the caused their break-up.

One client called me up almost every day, confused and angry, because her husband did not allow her to go back to their home when she returned after being abroad for some months. She learned he had filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage and had claimed that they did not own any property in common. He said that their family home and his business was acquired and owned by his parents. She could not accept that all of a sudden, she was without a home to go to. And to top it all her children preferred to stay with their father in the comforts they have become accustomed to. She was made to believe that her marriage was under the system of absolute community of property and that she had an equal right to properties brought into the marriage by her husband. It turned out, his parents knew better. They registered all their children’s properties and businesses in a family corporation where her husband had a minimal share.

Under the Family Code, couples who get married without agreeing in a written document on the regime of property relations are automatically governed by the regime of absolute community of property. This is thus called the default regime of property relations between spouses. And what does the regime of absolute community of property mean? Under this system, the spouses become co-owners of everything they own at the time of marriage and everything else that they acquire during the marriage. There are exceptions, however, and among them is property acquired during marriage by donation to just one of them or inheritance. This was an innovation in the Family Code which took effect in August 1988. Before this, the default regime was the conjugal partnership of gains. The framers of the Code believed that absolute community was more in keeping with the virtue of sharing everything with one’s spouse to foster oneness.

But is this really the ideal default regime of property relations? I know of an engaged couple whose marriage did not push through because the guy and his parents wanted the bride-to-be to sign a pre-nuptial agreement stating that they would be governed by the system of complete separation of property. You see, the guy came from a wealthy family who, in his young age, owned expensive real estate properties and pricey cars. Hurt by the insinuation that she was after the family’s wealth, the girl broke off with her fiance.

At the other end of the spectrum, I encountered a crafty woman who married a young man fresh from college. She knew that the guy had numerous properties in his name given him by his wealthy parents. In their short cohabitation, she found a way to get copies of all the titles to the properties of her husband including bank accounts where his parents would deposit money for him. They lived in luxury without having to work until she decided she was not happy in the marriage, and left. She then filed a case for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. In her petition she listed all the properties owned by her husband prior to their marriage and asked that these properties be divided equally between them. The guy’s parents were appalled. They did not think of getting her to sign a pre-nuptial agreement for fear it would cause a rift in their son’s relationship with her. Yet, to them this was an injustice of the highest order.

Before the Family Code of the Philippines came into force in 1988, couples who married were automatically governed by the conjugal partnership of gains in respect to their property relations. The concept of conjugal partnership meant that when a person married, he or she would put into a common fund with his spouse the fruits of his or her labor and the fruits of the properties each of them already owned at the time of the celebration of the marriage. It was essentially a partnership and each one contributed what he had or earned to the partnership. Incomes were shared and so were expenses. Thus terms like ‘conjugal dictatorship’ and ‘conjugal leadership’ came into existence to mean something shared in equal by spouses. But the properties each one owned prior to the wedding remained to be each one’s separate property. Thus, when things soured between them and they had to separate, each one got back what he initially put into the partnership, unless it had been consumed because the partnership did not earn enough for the family’s upkeep.

Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, parents did not have to worry about giving properties to their children even before their marriage because when their children’s marriage did not work, what they put in would come back. Fewer couples then thought of getting a pre-nuptial agreement signed by their future spouse because the regime of property was not absolute community; thus, the risks were less.

The cases I mentioned should make one think. Perhaps, legislating or imposing a system of property relations between marrying couples is not the key to foster a better relationship or a sense of oneness. When a couple’s marriage works, it doesn’t matter what regime of property relations governs them. With or without it, everything is shared between a loving and happily married couple. More often, they give to the other more than demand anything for themselves. This is why, even when the law says that inheritance obtained by one during his marriage does not become common property but remains to be the property of the heir who receives it, between happily married couples, even properties inherited are shared by them without accounting or question. In fact, even if the legislated default system were that of a complete separation of property, loving couples will not be deterred from totally sharing everything they have with the other. Thus, legislating that every thing owned by one automatically becomes co-owned by the other upon marriage is unnecessary and may even result in injustice.

In a decision, the Supreme Court has led the way to cure the injustice that may result out of the system of absolute community for spouses whose marriage has been declared void. But a discussion on that will have to wait until the next article in this column. –RITA LINDA V. JIMENO, Manila Standard Today

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