Civil Code

Conjugal partnership; effects of legal separation;

forfeiture of share in profits. Among the effects of
the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal
partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the
offending spouse would have no right to any
share of the net profits earned by the conjugal
partnership. Thus it is only the offending spouses
share in the net profits, and not the share in the
property, which is forfeited. Article 102(4) of the
Family Code provides that [f]or purposes of
computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in
accordance with Article 43, No. (2) and 63, No.
(2), the said profits shall be the increase in value
between the market value of the community
property at the time of the celebration of the
marriage and the market value at the time of its
dissolution. Mario Siochi vs.
Alfredo Gozon, et al./Inter-Dimensional Realty,
Inc. Vs. Mario Siochi, et al., G.R. No.
169900/G.R. No. 169977, March 18, 2010
Conjugal partnership; presumption of conjugal
nature; need for marital consent. The Civil Code
of the Philippines, the law in force at the time of
the celebration of the marriage between Martha
and Manuel in 1957, provides all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to the wife. This
includes property which is acquired by onerous
title during the marriage at the expense of the
common fund, whether the acquisition be for the
partnership, or for only one of the spouses. The
court is not persuaded by Titans arguments that
the property was Marthas exclusive property
because Manuel failed to present before the RTC
any proof of his income in 1970, hence he could
not have had the financial capacity to contribute
to the purchase of the property in 1970; and that
Manuel admitted that it was Martha who
concluded the original purchase of the property.
In consonance with its ruling in Spouses Castro
v. Miat, Manuel was not required to prove that the
property was acquired with funds of the
partnership. Rather, the presumption applies
even when the manner in which the property was
acquired does not appear. Here, we find that
Titan failed to overturn the presumption that the
property, purchased during the spouses

marriage, was part of the conjugal

partnership. Since the property was undoubtedly
part of the conjugal partnership, the sale to Titan
required the consent of both spouses. Article 165
of the Civil Code expressly provides that the
husband is the administrator of the conjugal
partnership. Likewise, Article 172 of the Civil
Code ordains that (t)he wife cannot bind the
conjugal partnership without the husbands
consent, except in cases provided by law. Titan
Construction Corporation Vs. Manuel A. David,
Sr. and Martha S. David, G.R. No. 169548,
March 15, 2010.
Conjugal partnership; sole administration. In this
case, Alfredo was the sole administrator of the
property because Elvira, with whom Alfredo was
separated in fact, was unable to participate in the
administration of the conjugal property. However,
as sole administrator of the property, Alfredo still
cannot sell the property without the written
consent of Elvira or the authority of the court.
Without such consent or authority, the sale is
void. The absence of the consent of one of the
spouse renders the entire sale void, including the
portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the
spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other
spouse actively participated in negotiating for the
sale of the property, that other spouses written
consent to the sale is still required by law for its
validity. The Agreement entered into by Alfredo
and Mario was without the written consent of
Elvira. Thus, the Agreement is entirely void. As
regards Marios contention that the Agreement is
a continuing offer which may be perfected by
Elviras acceptance before the offer is withdrawn,
the fact that the property was subsequently
donated by Alfredo to Winifred and then sold
to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was
already
withdrawn. Mario Siochi vs.
Alfredo Gozon, et al./Inter-Dimensional Realty,
Inc. Vs. Mario Siochi, et al., G.R. No.
169900/G.R. No. 169977, March 18, 2010