RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

ILUSORIO v BILDNER (Can writ of habeas corpus compel marital cohabitation?)

○ Potenciano and Erlinda were married and lived together for 30 years and had six children before
living separately.
○ Potenciano’s health deteriorated and stayed with Erlinda for a couple of months but did not
return after a meeting in Baguio City.
○ Erlinda filed a petition for habeas corpus to gain custody of Potenciano, claiming that their
children denied her access to her husband.
■ Issue: May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with
her?
■ Ruling: No. Marital cohabitation may not be enforced by the extraordinary writ of habeas
corpus.
■ Moral: Marital Cohabitation is best left to the man and woman’s free choice.

ATILANO v BENG (The wife left and refused to live together with husband, is she
entitled for support?)
○ Atilano and Beng were married and cohabitated in Manila. They lived together with the parents
of the husband.
○ Atilano had disagreements with her in-laws.
○ When Atilano went to Zamboanga, she did not return.
○ Atilano then filed a complaint for support against her husband, alleging that they were estranged
and live separately because Beng cannot provide for themselves separate from the husband’s
parents.
○ In his defense, Beng (Husband) alleged that he is willing to establish a conjugal dwelling in
Manila that is separate from his parents.
■ Issue: WON the wife is entitled for support.
■ Ruling: No.
■ Moral: The husband even offered options in order for them to live together but she still
refused. Hence, the court found no reason why she should be entitled for support.

LUA v LUA (does mere luxuries may be included in computing for the amount of
support)
○ Susan Lua filed for an action for declaration of nullity of marriage and support against her
husband Danilo Lua.
○ The trial court granted the petition and awarded 250k support to Susan, but this was reduced to
125k by the CA.
○ The CA contends that it reduced the amount because it included the costs paid by Danilo for the
purchase and maintenance of two cars, tuition, travel expenses and groceries that allegedly
benefit their children and Susan herself.
■ Issue: WON the value of the cars, travel expenses and credit card purchases should be
considered in computing for support.
■ Ruling: No.
■ Moral: It should not be included because is bears no relation to the judgment awarding
support (they were mere luxuries)
● Factors in determining amount of provisional support
○ (1) financial resources of parents
○ (2) Physical and emotional health of child
○ (3) standard of living of the child
○ (4) Non-monetary contributions that parents will make toward care and
well-being of the child.
 PROPERTY RELATIONS OF SPOUSES

FALCIS v CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL (Falcis is a Homosexual)

○ Falcis filed a petition for certiorari declaring Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code as
unconstitutional.
○ Article 1 and 2 define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
○ Falcis claimed that the provision violated his right to due process, equal protection and right to
marry.
■ Issue: WON limiting civil marriage to man and woman violates the constitutional rights
■ Ruling: No. The issues raised were not ripe for adjudication.
■ Moral: The court emphasized the need for public discussion and legislative action in
recognition of the same-sex marriage.
● Falcis also did not apply for marriage license hence he lacked legal standing.

NOBLEZA v NUEGA (DH in Israel, husband sold the property w/o consent)
○ Shirley and Rogelio were married. Shirley was working as a domestic helper in Israel
○ Shirley sent Rogelio money for the purchase of a residential lot.
○ The title of the property was issued solely under the name of Rogelio.
○ Rogelio had an extra-marital affair, hence Shirley filed a case for concubinage and Legal
Separation.
○ Prior to the resolution of the case, Rogelio sold the subject property without Shirley’s consent.
○ Petitioner who bought the subject property from Rogelio filed a suit contending that Shirley and
Rogelio should be held jointly liable.
■ Issue: WON the sale of subject property was valid
■ Ruling: No. The Subject Property forms part of the absolute community property,
Shirley’s consent is needed for the sale to be valid.
● Being that there is no evidence to show that Rogelio redounded to the benefit of
the property, Shirley cannot be made to reimburse any amount to petitioner.
■ Moral: Since property regime is ACP, sale without consent of other spouse is void, even
if property is registered in the name of only one spouse.

PANA v JUANITE (May conjugal properties be levied to satisfy judgment)

○ Efren and Melecia were married and CPG as their property regime.
○ Efren and Melecia were both accused of murder.
○ Efren was acquitted due to insufficient evidence but Melecia was found guilty and ordered to
pay damages.
○ Upon execution of judgment, it was found that Melecia’s separate property was not enough to
satisfy the judgment.
○ The trial court levied the properties registered in the names of Efren and Melecia.
○ Efren and Melecia opposed this, contending that it was their conjugal assets and not the sole
property of Melecia.
■ Issue: WON their conjugal properties may be levied to satisfy judgment.
■ Ruling: Yes.
■ Moral: (Add-on Notes) Post marriage modification of such settlements can take place
only if ACP or CPG is dissolved by Legal Separation and the spouses reconciled and the
former property regime was revived.

QUIAO v QUIAO (meaning of net profits earned)

○ Rita filed a complaint for legal separation against Brigido.
○ The custody of the children were awarded to Rita, since she was the innocent spouse.
○ It was granted and the properties were ordered to be divided equally. The net profits earned
shall then be forfeited in favor of the common children.
○ The dissolution of their marriage was governed by the family code.
■ Issue: The Meaning of net profits earned by the conjugal property for purposes of
effecting the forfeiture authorized under Art. 63 of the Family Code.
 ■ Ruling: Prior to the liquidation of the conjugal property, the interest of each spouse in the
conjugal assets is inchoate (not full). The interest of each spouse is limited to the net
remainder resulting from the liquidation.
■ Moral: the “vested right” of the petitioner over half of the common property of the
conjugal partnership is not violated.
● Share of conjugal partnership profits may be forfeited if you are the guilty party in
case of legal separation.

BUENAVENTURA v CA (What happens to the property relation after marriage is

delcared void ab initio)
○ Noel and Isabel were married.
○ Their marriage was declared null and void ab initio due to the psychological incapacity of Isabel.
○ The trial court also ordered the liquidation
■ Issue: What property relation governs when the marriage is declared void ab initio?
■ Ruling: Art. 147 or Art. 148
■ Moral: Art. 147 if the marriage is declared void ab initio (such as due to psychological
incapacity)
● Art. 148 if the marriage is declared void ab initio due to legal impediment of one
or both spouses (bigamous marriages, not of legal age, etc.)

HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSO v DAILO (Property mortgage without

consent)
○ Miguela were married to Marcelino.
○ During their marriage they acquired a house and lot but registered it to Marcelino’s name alone
for tax purposes.
○ Marcelino, through an SPA, obtained a loan secure by the subject property.
○ This was done without Miguela’s knowledge and consent.
○ Marcelino defaulted in payment so the petitioner filed for extrajudicial foreclosure, the trial court
ruled in favor of the petitioner.
○ After Marcelino’s death, Miguela discovered the mortgage so she filed an action seeking to
nullify the sale of the subject property.
■ Issue: WON the mortgage of Marcelino on the subject property registered in his name,
without Miguela’s consent is valid.
■ Ruling: No. The subject property since it was bought during marriage, form part of their
community property, hence it cannot be disposed without other spouses’ consent.
■ Moral: In the absence of court authority or consent of other spouse, any disposition or
incumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void
● Burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit of conjugal
partnership lies with the creditor

CARIÑO v CARIÑO (What happens to the property relation after marriage is delcared
void ab initio)
○ Santiago first married Susan Nicdao and had two children.
○ During the subsistence of their marriage, Santiago married Susan Yee. They were not blessed
with children.
○ After Santiago’s death, Susan Nicdao and Susan Yee filed monetary claims to various
government agencies.
■ Issue: What property relation governs in this case?
■ Ruling: Art. 148, since Santiago had legal impediment (subsistence of his first marriage)
■ Moral: Art. 147 if the marriage is declared void ab initio (such as due to psychological
incapacity)
● Art. 148 if the marriage is declared void ab initio due to legal impediment of one
or both spouses (bigamous marriages, not of legal age, etc.)