Noveras vs Noveras.docx

7/25/2019 Noveras vs Noveras.docx

1/28

G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014

DAVID A. NOVERAS,Petitioner,vs.LETICIA T. NOVERAS,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the 9a! "##$ De%ision&of the Court of 'ppeals in C'().R ..C* No. $$+$+, whi%h affired in part the $ De%e-er"##+ De%ision"of the Regional rial Court /RC0 ofBaler, 'urora, Bran%h 9+.

he fa%tual ante%edents are as follow1

David '. Noveras /David0 and 2eti%ia . Noveras/2eti%ia0 were arried on 3 De%e-er &9$$ in 4ue5onCit!, Philippines. he! resided in California, 6nitedStates of 'eri%a /6S'0 where the! eventuall!a%7uired 'eri%an %iti5enship. he! then -egot two

%hildren, nael!1 8eroe .

Noveras, who was -orn on Nove-er &99# and 8ena.Noveras, -orn on " a! &993. David was engaged in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt1


2/28

%ourier servi%e -usiness while 2eti%ia wor:ed as a nursein San ;ran%is%o, California.

During the arriage, the! a%7uired the followingproperties in the Philippines and in the 6S'1

PILIPPINES

PROPERT!"AIR #AR$ET

VAL%E

" s7. .lo%ated at 2a-o!,Dipa%ulao, 'urora

P##,###.##

' par%el of land with anarea of ".= he%tareslo%ated at aria 'urora,

P9#,###.##


3/28

'urora

' par%el of land with anarea of &>= s7..lo%ated at Sa-ang Baler,'urora

P&>=,###.##3

3(has. %o%onutplantation in San8oa7uin aria 'urora,'urora

P>=#,###.##

% S A

PROPERT! "AIR #AR$ETVAL%E


4/28

;urniture andfurnishings

?3,###

8ewelries /ring andwat%h0

?9,###

"### Nissan ;rontier

@ pi%:up tru%:

?&3,>>#.##

Ban: of 'eri%aChe%:ing '%%ount

?$,###

Ban: of 'eri%a CashDeposit

2ife Insuran%e /Cash*alue0

?#,###.##

Retireent, pension,profit(sharing, annuities

?=+,""$.##
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt4


5/28

he Sapalo% propert! used to -eowned -! DavidAsparents. he parties herein se%ured a loan fro a -an:and ortgaged the propert!. hen said propert! was

a-out to -e fore%losed, the %ouple paid a total of P&.=illion for the redeption of the sae.

Due to -usiness reverses, David left the 6S' andreturned to the Philippines in "##&. In De%e-er"##",2eti%ia e@e%uted a Spe%ial Power of 'ttorne!

/SP'0 authori5ing David to sell the Sapalo% propert!for P"." illion. '%%ording to 2eti%ia, soetie inSepte-er "##3, David a-andoned his fail! and livedwith Estrellita artine5 in 'urora provin%e. 2eti%ia%laied that David agreed toand e@e%uted a 8oint'ffidavit with 2eti%ia in the presen%e of DavidAs

father, 'tt!. Isaias Noveras, on 3 De%e-er "##3stating that1 &0 the P&.&illion pro%eeds fro the saleof the Sapalo% propert! shall -e paid to and %olle%ted-! 2eti%ia "0 that David shall return and pa! to2eti%iaP>=#,###.##, whi%h is e7uivalent to half of theaount of the redeption pri%e of the Sapalo%

propert! and 30 that David shall renoun%e and forfeitall his rights and interest in the %onugal and realproperties situated in the Philippines.=David was a-leto %olle%t P&,>9#,###.## fro the sale of the Sapalo%propert!, leaving an unpaid -alan%e of P,###.##.


6/28

6pon learning that David had an e@tra(arital affair,2eti%ia filed a petition for divor%e with the SuperiorCourt of California, Count! of San ateo, 6S'. he

California %ourt granted the divor%e on " 8une "##=and udgent was dul! entered on "9 8une "##=.+heCalifornia %ourt granted to 2eti%ia the %ustod! of hertwo %hildren, as well as all the %oupleAs properties inthe 6S'.>

On $ 'ugust "##=, 2eti%ia filed a petition for 8udi%ialSeparation of Conugal Propert! -efore the RC ofBaler, 'urora. She relied on the 3 De%e-er "##38oint 'ffidavit and DavidAs failure to %opl! with hiso-ligation under the sae. She pra!ed for1 &0 thepower to adinister all %onugal properties in the

Philippines "0 David and his partner to %ease and desistfro selling the su-e%t %onugal properties 30 thede%laration that all %onugal properties -e forfeited infavor of her %hildren 0 David to reit half of thepur%hase pri%e as share of 2eti%ia fro the sale of theSapalo% propert! and =0 the pa!ent ofP=#,###.##

and P#,###.## litigation e@penses.

$

In his 'nswer, David stated that a udgent for thedissolution of their arriage was entered on "9 8une"##= -! the Superior Court of California, Count! of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_188289_2014.html#fnt8


7/28

San ateo.


8/28

sales pro%eeds of their propert! in Sapalo%,anila and one(half of the P&.= FGillion used toredee the propert! of 'tt!. Isaias Noveras,

in%luding interests and %harges.

=.


9/28

States of 'eri%a reaining in the sole ownershipof petitioner 2eti%ia Noveras a.:.a. 2eti%iaa%-iana pursuant to the divor%e de%ree issued-!

the Superior Court of California, Count! of Sanateo, 6nited States of 'eri%a, dissolving thearriage of the parties as of 8une ", "##=. hetitles presentl! %overing said properties shall -e%an%elled and new titles -e issued in the nae ofthe part! to who said properties are awarded

3. One(half of the properties awarded torespondent David '. Noveras in the pre%edingparagraph are here-! given to 8eroe and 8ena,his two inor %hildren with petitioner2eti%iaNoveras a.:.a. 2eti%ia a%-iana as their

presuptive legities and said legities ust -eannotated on the titles %overing the saidproperties.heir share in the in%oe fro theseproperties shall -e reitted to the annuall! -!the respondent within the first half of 8anuar! ofea%h !ear, starting 8anuar! "##$

. One(half of the properties in the 6nited Statesof 'eri%a awarded to petitioner 2eti%ia Noverasa.:.a. 2eti%ia a%-iana in paragraph " are here-!given to 8eroe and 8ena, her two inor %hildren


10/28

with respondent David '. Noveras as theirpresuptive legities and said legities ust -eannotated on the titlesHdo%uents %overing the

said properties. heir share in the in%oe frothese properties, if an!, shall -e reitted to theannuall! -! the petitioner within the first half of8anuar! of ea%h !ear, starting 8anuar! "##$

=. ;or the support of their two /"0 inor %hildren,

8eroe and 8ena, respondent David '. Noverasshall give the 6S?#.## as onthl! allowan%e inaddition to their in%oe fro their presuptivelegities, while petitioner 2eti%ia a%-iana shallta:e %are of their food, %lothing, edu%ation andother needs while the! are in her %ustod! in the

6S'. he onthl! allowan%e due fro therespondent shall -e in%reased in the future as theneeds of the %hildren re7uire and his finan%ial%apa%it! %an afford

+. Of the unpaid aount of P,###.## on thepur%hase pri%e of the Sapalo% propert!, the

Paringit Spouses are here-! ordered topa! P=,###.## to respondent David '. Noverasand P#=,###.## to the two %hildren. he share ofthe respondent a! -e paid to hi dire%tl! -ut the


11/28

share of the two %hildren shall -e deposited with alo%al -an: in Baler, 'urora, in a oint a%%ount to-eta:en out in their naes, withdrawal fro whi%h

shall onl! -e ade -! the or -! theirrepresentative dul! authori5ed with a Spe%ialPower of 'ttorne!. Su%h pa!entHdeposit shall -eade withinthe period of thirt! /3#0 da!s afterre%eipt of a %op! of this De%ision, with thepass-oo: of the oint a%%ount to -e su-itted to

the %ustod! of the Cler: of Court of this Courtwithin the sae period. Said pass-oo: %an -ewithdrawn fro the Cler: of Court onl! -! the%hildren or their attorne!(in(fa%t and

>. he litigation e@penses and attorne!As fees

in%urred -! the parties shall -e shouldered -!the individuall!.&&

he trial %ourt re%ogni5ed that sin%e the parties are6S %iti5ens, the laws that %over their legal andpersonalstatus are those of the 6S'. ith respe%t totheir arriage, the parties are divor%ed -! virtue of

the de%ree of dissolution of their arriage issued -!the Superior Court of California, Count! of San ateoon "8une "##=. 6nder their law, the partiesA arriagehad alread! -een dissolved. hus, the trial %ourt


12/28

%onsidered the petition filed -! 2eti%ia as one forli7uidation of the a-solute %ounit! of propert!regie with the deterination of the legities,

support and %ustod! of the %hildren, instead of ana%tion for udi%ial separation of %onugal propert!.

ith respe%t to their propert! relations, the trial%ourt first %lassified their propert! regie as a-solute%ounit! of propert! -e%ause the! did not e@e%ute

an! arriage settleent -efore the soleni5ation oftheir arriage pursuant to 'rti%le >= of the ;ail!Code. hen, the trial %ourt ruled that in a%%ordan%ewith the do%trine of pro%essual presuption, Philippinelaw should appl! -e%ause the %ourt %annot ta:e udi%ialnoti%e of the 6S law sin%e the parties did not su-it

an! proof of their national law. he trial %ourt heldthat as the instant petition does not fall under theprovisions of the law for the grant of udi%ialseparation of properties, the a-solute %ounit!properties %annot -eforfeited in favor of 2eti%ia andher %hildren. oreover, the trial %ourt o-served that

2eti%ia failed to prove a-andonent and infidelit! withpreponderant eviden%e.

he trial %ourt however ruled that 2eti%ia is notentitled to the rei-urseents she is pra!ing for


13/28

%onsidering that she alread! a%7uired all of theproperties in the 6S'. Rel!ing still on the prin%iple ofe7uit!, the Court also adudi%ated the Philippine

properties to David, su-e%t to the pa!ent of the%hildrenAs presuptive legities. he trial %ourt heldthat under 'rti%le $9 of the ;ail! Code, the waiver orrenun%iation ade -! David of his propert! rights inthe 8oint 'ffidavit is void.

On appeal, the Court of 'ppeals odified the trial%ourtAs De%ision -! dire%ting the e7ual division of thePhilippine properties -etween the spouses. oreoverwith respe%t to the %oon %hildrenAs presuptivelegitie, the appellate %ourt ordered -oth spouses toea%h pa! their %hildren the aount of P="#,###.##,

thus1


14/28

Noveras a.:.a. 2eti%ia a%-iana /si%0 andrespondent David '. Noveras

@ @ @

. One(half of the properties awarded topetitioner 2eti%ia a%-iana /si%0 in paragraph "shall pertain to her inor %hildren, 8eroe and8ena, as their presuptive legities whi%h shall -eannotated on the titlesHdo%uents %overing thesaid properties. heir share in the in%oetherefro, if an!, shall -e reitted to the -!petitioner annuall! within the first half of 8anuar!,starting "##$

@ @ @

+. Respondent David '. Noveras and petitioner2eti%ia a%-iana /si%0 are ea%h ordered to pa! theaount ofP="#,###.## to their two %hildren,8eroe and 8ena, as their presuptive legitiesfro the sale of the Sapalo% propert! in%lusiveof the re%eiva-les therefro, whi%h shall -e

deposited to a lo%al -an: of Baler, 'urora, under aoint a%%ount in the latterAs naes. hepa!entHdeposit shall -e ade within a period ofthirt! /3#0 da!s fro re%eipt ofa %op! of this


15/28

De%ision and the %orresponding pass-oo: entrustedto the %ustod! ofthe Cler: of Court a 7uowithinthe sae period, withdrawa-le onl! -! the %hildren

or their attorne!(in(fa%t.

' nu-er $ is here-! added, whi%h shall read asfollows1

$. Respondent David '. Noveras is here-! orderedto pa! petitioner 2eti%ia a%-iana /si%0 the aountofP&,##,###.## representing her share in thepro%eeds fro the sale of the Sapalo% propert!.

he last paragraph shall read as follows1

Send a %op! of this De%ision to the lo%al %ivil registr!of Baler, 'urora the lo%al %ivil registr! of 4ue5onCit! the Civil Registrar)eneral, National Statisti%sOffi%e, *i-al Building, ies Street %orner EDS',4ue5on Cit! the Offi%e of the Registr! of Deeds forthe Provin%e of 'urora and to the %hildren, 8eroeNoveras and 8ena Noveras.

he rest of the De%ision is ';;IRED.&"

In the present petition, David insists that the Court of'ppeals should have re%ogni5ed the California8udgent whi%h awarded the Philippine properties to


16/28

hi -e%ause said udgent was part of the pleadingpresented and offered in eviden%e -efore the trial%ourt. David argues that allowing 2eti%ia to share in the

Philippine properties is tantaount to unustenri%hent in favor of 2eti%ia %onsidering that thelatter was alread! granted all 6S properties -! theCalifornia %ourt.

In suar! and review, the -asi% fa%ts are1 David and

2eti%ia are 6S %iti5ens who own properties in the 6S'and in the Philippines. 2eti%ia o-tained a de%ree ofdivor%e fro the Superior Court of California in 8une"##= wherein the %ourt awarded all the properties inthe 6S' to 2eti%ia. ith respe%t to their properties inthe Philippines, 2eti%iafiled a petition for udi%ial

separation of%onugal properties.'t the outset, the trial %ourt erred in re%ogni5ing thedivor%e de%ree whi%h severed the -ond of arriage-etween the parties. In Corpu5 v. Sto. oas,&3westated that1

he starting point in an! re%ognition of a foreigndivor%e udgent is the a%:nowledgent that our%ourts do not ta:e udi%ial noti%e of foreign udgentsand laws. 8usti%e


17/28

a udgent rendered -! a tri-unal of another %ountr!.his eans that the foreign udgent and itsauthenti%it! ust -eproven as fa%ts under our rules on

eviden%e, together with the alienAs appli%a-le nationallaw to show the effe%t of the udgent on the alienhiself or herself. he re%ognition a! -e ade in ana%tion instituted spe%ifi%all! for the purpose or inanother a%tion where a part! invo:es the foreignde%ree as an integral aspe%t of his %lai or defense.&

he re7uireents of presenting the foreign divor%ede%ree and the national law of the foreigner ust%opl! with our Rules of Eviden%e. Spe%ifi%all!, forPhilippine %ourts to re%ogni5e a foreign udgentrelating to the status of a arriage, a %op! of the

foreign udgent a! -e aditted in eviden%e andproven as a fa%t under Rule &3", Se%tions " and "=, inrelation to Rule 39, Se%tion $/-0 of the Rules ofCourt.&=

6nder Se%tion " of Rule &3", the re%ord of pu-li%do%uents of a sovereign authorit! or tri-unal a! -e

proved -!1 /&0 an offi%ial pu-li%ation thereof or /"0 a%op! attested -! the offi%er having the legal %ustod!thereof. Su%h offi%ial pu-li%ation or %op! ust-ea%%opanied, if the re%ord is not :ept in the


18/28

Philippines, with a %ertifi%ate that the attestingoffi%er has the legal %ustod! thereof. he %ertifi%atea! -e issued -! an! of the authori5ed Philippine

e-ass! or %onsular offi%ials stationed in the foreign%ountr! in whi%h the re%ord is :ept, and authenti%ated-! the seal of his offi%e. he attestation ust state, insu-stan%e, that the %op! is a %orre%t %op! of theoriginal, or a spe%ifi% part thereof, asthe %ase a! -e,and ust -e under the offi%ial seal of the attesting

offi%er.

Se%tion "= of the sae Rule states that whenever a%op! of a do%uent or re%ord is attested for thepurpose of eviden%e, the attestation ust state, insu-stan%e, that the %op! is a %orre%t %op! of the

original, or a spe%ifi% part thereof, as the %ase a! -e.he attestation ust -e under the offi%ial seal of theattesting offi%er, if there -e an!, or if he-e the %ler:of a %ourt having a seal, under the seal of su%h %ourt.

Based on the re%ords, onl! the divor%e de%ree waspresented in eviden%e. he re7uired %ertifi%ates to

prove its authenti%it!, as well as the pertinentCalifornia law on divor%e were not presented.

It a! -e noted that in Ba!ot v. Court of 'ppeals,&+werela@ed the re7uireent on %ertifi%ation where we held


19/28

that Fpetitioner thereinG was %learl! an 'eri%an%iti5enwhen she se%ured the divor%e and that divor%eis re%ogni5ed and allowed in an! of the States of the

6nion, the presentation of a %op! of foreign divor%ede%ree dul! authenti%ated-! the foreign %ourt issuingsaid de%ree is, as here, suffi%ient. In this %asehowever, it appears that there is no seal fro theoffi%e where the divor%e de%ree was o-tained.

Even if we appl! the do%trine of pro%essualpresuption&>as the lower %ourts did with respe%t tothe propert! regie of the parties, the re%ognition ofdivor%e is entirel! a different atter -e%ause, to -eginwith, divor%e is not re%ogni5ed -etween ;ilipino%iti5ens in the Philippines. '-sent a valid re%ognition of

the divor%e de%ree, it follows that the parties are stilllegall! arried in the Philippines. he trial %ourt thuserred in pro%eeding dire%tl! to li7uidation.

's a general rule, an! odifi%ation in the arriagesettleents ust -e ade -efore the %ele-ration ofarriage. 'n e@%eption to this rule is allowed provided

that the odifi%ation isudi%iall! approved and refersonl! to the instan%es provided in 'rti%les ++,+>, &"$,&3= and &3+ of the ;ail! Code.&$


20/28

2eti%ia an%hored the filing of the instant petition forudi%ial separation of propert! on paragraphs and +of 'rti%le &3= of the ;ail! Code, to wit1

'rt. &3=. 'n! of the following shall -e %onsideredsuffi%ient %ause for udi%ial separation of propert!1

/&0 hat the spouse of the petitioner has -eensenten%ed to a penalt! whi%h %arries with it %ivilinterdi%tion

/"0 hat the spouse of the petitioner has -eenudi%iall! de%lared an a-sentee

/30 hat loss of parental authorit! ofthe spouse ofpetitioner has -een de%reed -! the %ourt

/0 hat the spouse of the petitioner hasa-andoned the latter or failed to %opl! with hisor her o-ligations to the fail! as provided for in'rti%le &

/=0 hat the spouse granted the power ofadinistration in the arriage settleents hasa-used that power and


21/28

/+0 hat at the tie of the petition, the spouseshave -een separated in fa%t for at least one !earand re%on%iliation is highl! ipro-a-le.

In the %ases provided for in Nu-ers /&0, /"0, and /30,the presentation of the final udgent against theguilt!or a-sent spouse shall -e enough -asis for thegrant of the de%ree ofudi%ial separation of propert!./Ephasis supplied0.

he trial %ourt had %ategori%all! ruled that there wasno a-andonent in this %ase to ne%essitate udi%ialseparation of properties under paragraph of 'rti%le&3= of the ;ail! Code. he trial %ourt ratio%inated1

oreover, a-andonent, under 'rti%le & of the

;ail! Code 7uoted a-ove, ust -e for a valid %auseand the spouse is deeed to have a-andoned the otherwhen heHshe has left the %onugal dwelling withoutintention of returning. he intention of not returning ispria fa%ie presued if the allegedl! Fsi%G a-andoningspouse failed to give an! inforation as to his or her

wherea-outs within the period of three onths frosu%h a-andonent.

In the instant %ase, the petitioner :nows that therespondent has returned to and sta!ed at his


22/28

hoetown in aria 'urora, Philippines, as she evenwent several ties to visit hi there after the allegeda-andonent. 'lso, the respondent has -een going -a%:

to the 6S' to visit her and their %hildren until therelations -etween the worsened. he last visit of saidrespondent was in O%to-er "## when he and thepetitioner dis%ussed the filing -! the latter of apetition for dissolution of arriage with the California%ourt. Su%h turn for the worse of their relationship

and the filing of the saidpetition %an also -e%onsidered as valid %auses for the respondent to sta!in the Philippines.&9

Separation in fa%t for one !ear as a ground to grant audi%ial separation of propert! was not ta%:led in the

trial %ourtAs de%ision -e%ause, the trial %ourterroneousl! treated the petition as li7uidation of thea-solute %ounit! of properties.

he re%ords of this %ase are replete with eviden%ethat 2eti%ia and David had indeed separated for orethan a !ear and that re%on%iliation is highl! ipro-a-le.

;irst, while a%tual a-andonent had not -een proven, itis undisputed that the spouses had -een livingseparatel! sin%e "##3 when David de%ided to go -a%:to the Philippines to set up his own -usiness. Se%ond,


23/28

2eti%ia heard fro her friends that David has -een%oha-iting with Estrellita artine5, who representedherself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha 'polonio, who

wor:ed in the hospital where David was on%e %onfined,testified that she saw the nae of Estrellita listed asthe wife of David in the Consent for Operationfor."#hird and ore signifi%antl!, the! had filed fordivor%e and it was granted -! the California %ourt in8une "##=.


24/28

/0 In %ase of udi%ial separation of propert!during the arriage under 'rti%les &3 to &3$./Ephasis supplied0.

6nder 'rti%le " of the sae Code, li7uidation followsthe dissolution of the a-solute %ounit! regie andthe following pro%edure should appl!1

'rt. ". 6pon dissolution of the a-solute %ounit!regie, the following pro%edure shall appl!1

/&0 'n inventor! shall -e prepared, listingseparatel! all the properties of the a-solute%ounit! and the e@%lusive properties of ea%hspouse.

/"0 he de-ts and o-ligations of the a-solute%ounit! shall -e paid out of its assets. In %aseof insuffi%ien%! of said assets, the spouses shall-e solidaril! lia-le for the unpaid -alan%e withtheir separate properties in a%%ordan%e with theprovisions of the se%ond paragraph of 'rti%le 9.

/30 hatever reains of the e@%lusive propertiesof the spouses shall thereafter -e delivered toea%h of the.


25/28

/0 he net reainder of the properties of thea-solute %ounit! shall %onstitute its net assets,whi%h shall -e divided e7uall! -etween hus-and and

wife, unless a different proportion or division wasagreed upon in the arriage settleents, or unlessthere has -een a voluntar! waiver of su%h shareprovided in this Code. ;or purposes of %oputingthe net profits su-e%t to forfeiture in a%%ordan%ewith 'rti%les 3, No. /"0 and +3, No. /"0,the said

profits shall -e the in%rease in value -etween thear:et value of the %ounit! propert! at thetie of the %ele-ration of the arriage and thear:et value at the tie of its dissolution.

/=0 he presuptive legities of the %oon

%hildren shall -e delivered upon partition, ina%%ordan%e with 'rti%le =&.

/+0 6nless otherwise agreed upon -! the parties, inthe partition of the properties, the %onugaldwelling and the lot on whi%h it is situated shall -eadudi%ated tothe spouse with who the aorit!

of the %oon %hildren %hoose to reain. Children-elow the age of seven !ears are deeed to have%hosen the other, unless the %ourt has de%idedotherwise. In %ase there is no su%h aorit!, the


26/28

%ourt shall de%ide, ta:ing into %onsideration the-est interests of said %hildren. 't the ris: of-eing repetitious, we will not reand the %ase to

the trial %ourt. Instead, we shall adopt theodifi%ations ade -! the Court of 'ppeals on thetrial %ourtAs De%ision with respe%t to li7uidation.

e agree with the appellate %ourt that the Philippine%ourts did not a%7uire urisdi%tion over the California

properties of David and 2eti%ia. Indeed, 'rti%le &+ ofthe Civil Code %learl! states that real propert! as wellas personal propert! is su-e%t to the law of the%ountr! where it is situated. hus, li7uidation shall onl!-e liited to the Philippine properties.

e affir the odifi%ation ade-! the Court of

'ppeals with respe%t to the share of the spouses inthe a-solute%ounit! properties in the Philippines, aswell as the pa!ent of their %hildrenAs presuptivelegities, whi%h the appellate %ourt e@plained in thiswise1

2eti%ia and David shall li:ewise have an e7ual share inthe pro%eeds of the Sapalo% propert!.&Jwphi&hile-oth %laied to have %ontri-uted to the redeption ofthe Noveras propert!, a-sent a %lear showing wheretheir %ontri-utions %ae fro, the sae is presued


27/28

to have %oe fro the %ounit! propert!. hus,2eti%ia is not entitled to rei-urseent of half of theredeption one!.

DavidKs allegation that he used part of the pro%eedsfro the sale of the Sapalo% propert! for the-enefit of the a-solute %ounit! %annot -e given full%reden%e. Onl! the aount of P&"#,###.## in%urred ingoing to and fro the 6.S.'. a! -e %harged thereto.

Ele%tion e@penses in the aount of P3##,###.## whenhe ran as uni%ipal %oun%ilor %annot -e allowed in thea-sen%e of re%eipts or at least the Stateent ofContri-utions and E@penditures re7uired under Se%tion& of Repu-li% '%t No. >&++ dul! re%eived -! theCoission on Ele%tions. 2i:ewise, e@penses in%urred to

settle the %riinal %ase of his personal driver is notdedu%ti-le as the sae had not -enefited the fail!.In su, 2eti%ia and David shall share e7uall! in thepro%eeds of the sale net of the aount of P&"#,###.##or in the respe%tive aounts of P&,##,###.##.

@ @ @ @

6nder the first paragraph of 'rti%le $$$ of the CivilCode, /t0he legitie of legitiate %hildren anddes%endants %onsists of one(half or the hereditar!estate of the father and of the other. he %hildren


28/28

ar% therefore entitled to half of the share of ea%hspouse in the net assets of the a-solute %ounit!,whi%h shall -e annotated on the titlesHdo%uents

%overing the sae, as well as to their respe%tive sharesin the net pro%eeds fro the sale of the Sapalo%propert! in%luding the re%eiva-les fro Sps. Paringit inthe aount of P,###.##. Conse7uentl!, David and2eti%ia should ea%h pa! the the aountof P="#,###.## as their presuptive legities

therefro."&

Noveras vs Noveras.docx

Documents

Transcript of Noveras vs Noveras.docx