Article Explanation: Articles 143, 144, 145 and 146 of the Family Code

Chapter 6 – Regime of Separation of Property

Art. 143. Should the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that their property relations during marriage shall be governed by the regime of separation of property, the provisions of this Chapter shall be suppletory. (212a)

Explanation:
The regime of complete separation of property is that matrimonial property regime agreed upon in the marriage settlements by the future spouses whereby each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer, and enjoy his or her separate estate or earnings acquired before and during the marriage without the consent of the other, with each spouse bearing the family expenses proportionally to their earnings and profits of their separate properties.

The advantage of this regime is its simplicity. It does not require a complicated liquidation upon the dissolution of marriage. The disadvantage of the regime is that it is based on distrust. It can result in disputes between the spouses in the sharing of the family expenses.

The regime of complete separation of property is applicable: (a) when the spouses agree upon it in the marriage settlements; and (b) if ordered by the court in proper cases.

The regime is governed: (a) by the provisions in the marriage settlements; and (b) suppletory, by the provisions of this Chapter.

Definition: suppletory = supplementary

Art. 144. Separation of property may refer to present or future property or both. It may be total or partial. In the latter case, the property not agreed upon as separate shall pertain to the absolute community. (213a)

Explanation:
Kinds of separation of property
By Existence: (a) present property; (b) future property; or (c) both present and future property
By Extent: (a) total; or (b) partial
In case of partial separation: the property not agreed upon as separate shall pertain to the absolute community

Art. 145. Each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or her own separate estate, without need of the consent of the other. To each spouse shall belong all earnings from his or her profession, business or industry and all fruits, natural, industrial or civil, due or received during the marriage from his or her separate property. (214a)

Explanation:
Each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer, and enjoy his or her own separate estate, without the need of the consent of the other.

All earnings from his or her profession, business or industry and all fruits, natural, industrial or civil, due or received during the marriage from his or her separate property shall belong to each spouse.

Art. 146. Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion to their income, or, in case of insufficiency or default thereof, to the current market value of their separate properties.

The liabilities of the spouses to creditors for family expenses shall, however, be solidary. (215a)

Explanation:
The family expenses shall be borne by both spouses: (a) in proportion to their income; or (b) in case of insufficiency or default of said income, to the current market value of their separate properties.

If a spouse has no income but has separate properties, the other spouse who earns an income may advance payment of the family expenses for said spouse subject to reimbursement at the appropriate time.

As to creditors for family expenses, the liability of the spouses shall be solidary. Hence, said creditors can go after each spouse for the full amount of the credit. If one spouse pays for the entire debt, he can secure reimbursement thereof from the other spouse.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admi
Read more

Case Digest for Articles 143-146: Carino v. Carino G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO, respondent. G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001 Facts: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao Cariño. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cariño. In 1988, prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed t
Read more

Case Digest: Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent | A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014 Facts:     Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous
Read more