0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
99 visualizzazioni1 pagina
This document discusses two doctrines regarding ownership of improvements made on separate property using conjugal funds:
1. The Maramba vs Lozano doctrine states that improvements do not automatically make the property conjugal, and ownership remains with the original owner until reimbursement occurs during liquidation.
2. The Vda de Padilla vs Paterno doctrine holds that fulfillment of the reimbursement condition relates back to the date of obligation, so the property is considered retroactively converted to conjugal from the time of initial construction. This doctrine is preferred for reasons including that the law itself transfers ownership to the conjugal partnership, and reimbursement is merely a condition imposed to make the property conjugal in character.
This document discusses two doctrines regarding ownership of improvements made on separate property using conjugal funds:
1. The Maramba vs Lozano doctrine states that improvements do not automatically make the property conjugal, and ownership remains with the original owner until reimbursement occurs during liquidation.
2. The Vda de Padilla vs Paterno doctrine holds that fulfillment of the reimbursement condition relates back to the date of obligation, so the property is considered retroactively converted to conjugal from the time of initial construction. This doctrine is preferred for reasons including that the law itself transfers ownership to the conjugal partnership, and reimbursement is merely a condition imposed to make the property conjugal in character.
This document discusses two doctrines regarding ownership of improvements made on separate property using conjugal funds:
1. The Maramba vs Lozano doctrine states that improvements do not automatically make the property conjugal, and ownership remains with the original owner until reimbursement occurs during liquidation.
2. The Vda de Padilla vs Paterno doctrine holds that fulfillment of the reimbursement condition relates back to the date of obligation, so the property is considered retroactively converted to conjugal from the time of initial construction. This doctrine is preferred for reasons including that the law itself transfers ownership to the conjugal partnership, and reimbursement is merely a condition imposed to make the property conjugal in character.
on the separate property of the spouses at the expenses of the partnership or the original ownerspouse, as the case may be? Ans: The 3rd paragraph of Art. 120 of the FC provides that the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement of the cost of improvement to the conjugal partnership or of the value of the property to the owner-spouse w/c shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. In the case of Maramba vs Lozano (20 SCRA 474), it was declared that the construction of a house at conjugal expense on the exclusive property of a spouse does not automatically make it conjugal. It is true that, in the meantime, the conjugal partnership may use the land & building, but it does not as owner, but as usufructuary. The ownership of the land remains the same until the value thereof is paid. This payment can only be demanded on the liquidation of the partnership. Ques: Is the doctrine enunciated in the case of Maramba vs Lozano the same doctrine enunciated in the case of Vda. de Padilla vs Paterno (113 Phil 656)? Ans: No. In the case of Vda de Padilla vs Paterno, w/ the factual background stated in question No. 44(b), the effects of the fulfillment of the suspensive condition (that the value of the lots are reimbursed to the widow at the of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties) should be deemed to retroact to the date of the constitution of the obligation (Art. 1187, NCC). In other words, their conversion from paraphernal to conjugal property should be deemed to retroact to the time the buildings were first constructed thereon, or at the very latest, to the time immediately before the death of the husband. That would be the only logical conclusion, because, if we say that they become conjugal only at the time when
the reimbursement is made, that would be
equivalent to saying that a conjugal partnership w/c no longer existed would still be able to acquire ownership over such properties. Certainly, that would be juridically impossible. Exponents of the doctrine enunciated in the Vda de Padilla vs Paterno case adhere to the said view for the ff reasons: (1) The mode by w/c the right of ownership over the land is transmitted to the conjugal partnership is not the payment of the value of the land but the law itself. To say that such transmission is effected by the payment would be creating another mode of acquiring ownership w/c is not recognized by law. (Art. 712, NCC) (2) The payment of the value of the land is merely a suspensive condition imposed by the law in order that said land shall become conjugal in character. That it could not be effected during the marriage is clear & logical because of the bar against transfers (whether by donation or by sale) during marriage. (Art. 1490, NCC). Hence, it can only be effected or fulfilled after said marriage has been dissolved & the conjugal partnership is liquidated. (3) Between the construction of the building & the payment of the value of the land during the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, said partnership is not only the usufructuary but also the conditional owner; in other words, it has already acquired a hope or expectancy over the land w/c is protected by law. (Arts. 1181, 1187, 1188, NCC.)
(4) To say that the land becomes conjugal upon
payment is juridically not possible because by then, the conjugal partnership has already been dissolved.