7/24/2019 6 Cases Doctrines Persons

1/2

Art.22 of CCBuemer vs. AMores December 3, 2012 G.R. No. 195670An acto! for recover" of #$at $as bee! %a& #t$out 'ustcausehas been designated as an acco! ! rem verso(A lawsuitagainst an item of property, not against a person). This %rovso!

&oes !ot a%%(" f, as in this case, the action is %roscrbe& b" t$eCo!sttuto!or by the application of the %ar &e(cto &octr!e(Legal term used to indicate that two persons or entities are equallyat fault).

Art.) *CAbbas v. Abbas +G.R. No. 1396, -a!. 30, 2013All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremonywas conducted and a marriage contract was signed, &oes !oto%erate to cure t$e abse!ce of a va(& marra/e (ce!se.

Art.122 *Ca!a v ers of -ua!to, r. +G.R. No. 16)201, Dec. 10, 2012444 s$ou(& $ave !o ec(usve %ro%ert" or f t s$ou(& be!suce!t 444Article ! above allows payment of the criminal indemnitiesimposed on his wife, "elecia, out of the partnership assets evenbefore these are liquidated. #ndeed, it states that such indemnities$may be enforced against the partnership assets after theresponsibilities enumerated in the preceding article have beencovered.%

Art.129 *C8A: v. 8A: G.R. No 176556, -u(" 0), 2012&hen a couple enters into a re/me of abso(ute commu!t", thehusband and the wife become 'oint owners of all the properties ofthe marriage.

Again, lest we be confused, lie in the absolute community regime,nothing will be returned to the guilty party in the con'ugalpartnership regime, because there is no separate property whichmay be accounted for in the guilty partys favor.

Art.19) *C;m ;ua v. ;ua +G.R. No. 175279!a!ca( ca%act" of t$e fam(".

7/24/2019 6 Cases Doctrines Persons

2/2

A!" amou!t res%o!&e!t see=s to be cre&te& as mo!t$("su%%ort s$ou(& o!(" cover t$ose !curre& for suste!a!ce a!&$ouse$o(& e%e!ses+so value of two epensive cars bought byrespondent for his children plus their maintenance cost, travelepenses of petitioner and Angelli, purchases through credit card of

items other than groceries and dry goods (clothing) should havebeen disallowed-.

Art.213 *CBec=ett v. arme!to A.M. No. R?-