8/19/2019 Jurisprudence Edited Conjugal

1/2

 JURISPRUDENCE:

1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEIRS OF CESAR JALANDONI, ET AL.,

(G.R. No. L-18384 Se!e"#e$ %&, 1')*“These three lots being conjugal property one!hal" thereo" belonging to the

#ecease#$s spouse shoul# still be #e#ucte#%

%. So$$+, A!!+. G#s . Ts /se 0oes o! vo2ve !!o .

2ese see J$s$0e/e "#e$ % 5o$ /o$$e/!o.PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., vs. DOROTEO T. 6ACUAN (G.R. No. L-

3%%8&, 6$/ %4, 1'3&*&or the "oregoing consi#erations 'e are o" opinion an# so hol#

that a (arrie# 'o(an un#er guar#ianship by reason o" (ental

#erange(ent is not entitle# to ha)e her hal" o" the legal

conjugal partnership 'hich still subsists inclu#e# in the

in)entory o" her property to be *le# by her guar#ian an#

there"ore the husban# appointe# guar#ian o" her person an#

estate cannot be co(pelle# to inclu#e in the in)entory o" thesa(e sai# hal" o" the conjugal property+

,a)ing reache# this conclusion 'e #ee( it unnecessary to

#eci#e the -uestions raise# in the other assign(ents o" error

since the special guar#ian #oes not conten# that the regular

guar#ian hol#s in his possession property belonging e.clusi)ely

to the 'ar# other than conjugal property+

%. THEL6A 6. ARANAS  v. TERESITA 7. 6ERCADO, FELI6ON 7. 6ERCADO,

CAR6ENCITA 6. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD 7. 6ERCADO (G.R. No. 1)4&,

 J$+ 1), %&14*E(ig#io an# Teresita ha)ing been (arrie# prior to the e/ecti)ity o" the Family 

Code in 0ugust 1 2344 their property regi(e 'as the conjugal partnership o" 

gains+53 &or purposes o" the settle(ent o" E(ig#io6s estate it 'as una)oi#able

"or Teresita to inclu#e his shares in the conjugal partnership o" gains+ The party

asserting that speci*c property ac-uire# #uring that property regi(e #i# not

pertain to the conjugal partnership o" gains carrie# the bur#en o" proo" an# that

party (ust pro)e the e.clusi)e o'nership by one o" the( by clear categorical

an# con)incing e)i#ence

3. PAULINA SOCHA9SENG vs. ANDRES TRUJILLO, (G.R. No. L-8'%, J2+

%4, 1'1)*

 The sur)i)ing spouse is oblige# upon the #eath o" the other to settle theconjugal partnership+ In this settle(ent a #e#uction shoul# be (a#e o" the #ebts

incurre# #uring the (arriage an# 'hat re(ains shoul# be #i)i#e# into t'o parts

the part correspon#ing to the #ecease# spouse together 'ith his o'n property

being that 'hich shoul# be sub(itte# to the probate court in the special

procee#ings "or the settle(ent o" the 'i"e$s estate+ The #ecision o" this court in

the case o" Amancio vs. Pardo 721 Phil+ Rep+ 5389 is base# upon this principle+ It

say: ;hen a conjugal partnership is #issol)e# by the #eath o" the 'i"e the

8/19/2019 Jurisprudence Edited Conjugal

2/2

sur)i)ing husban# an# not the ju#icial a#(inistrator appointe# in the

procee#ings "or the settle(ent o" the estate is entitle# to the possession o" the

property o" the conjugal partnership until he has li-ui#ate# its a/airs+

4. DA7ID A. NO7ERAS vs LETICIA T. NO7ERAS (G.R. No. 188%8', A:s!

%&, %&14*Un#er the *rst paragraph o" 0rticle 444 o" the Ci)il Co#e 7t9he legiti(e o" 

legiti(ate chil#ren an# #escen#ants consists o" one!hal" or the here#itary estate

o" the "ather an# o" the (other+

). ESTELA COSTUNA vs.L AUREANA DO6ONDON THE HON. PRESIDING

 JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (G.R. No. 8%)3, De/e"#e$ 1', 1'8'*Notably 'hat 'as sol# by 0(a#eo 'ithout the petitioner$s consent 'as only

an un#eter(ine# one!hal" 72