Civil Code

Civil CodeConjugal 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.MarioSiochivs. AlfredoGozon,etal./Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc. Vs. MarioSiochi,etal., G.R. No. 169900/G.R. No. 169977, March 18, 2010Conjugal 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 propertywhich 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 isnot 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 inSpouses 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 toIDRIclearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.MarioSiochivs. AlfredoGozon,etal./Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc. Vs. MarioSiochi,etal., G.R. No. 169900/G.R. No. 169977, March 18, 2010