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 for Article 91 of the Family Code: Munoz v. Ramirez and Carlos

FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO CARLOS, Respondents G.R. No. 156125, 25 August 2010 FACTS: The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On 6 April 1989, Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66. The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story residential house on the lot. On 14 July 1993, the title to the subject property was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 April 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00. On 24 September 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for the nullification of the deed of absolute sa
Read more

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: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts:     Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.     It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prosp
Read more