Article 127 and 128 of the Family code of the Philippines

Article 127. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that:    

   (1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;

  (2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other is required by law, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a summary proceeding; 

(3) In the absence of sufficient conjugal partnership property, the separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon petition in a summary proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or encumber any specific separate property of the other spouse and use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter’s share. (178a)
Effect of separation in fact of the spouses.
(a)the spouse who leaves the conjugal dwelling without just cause shall not be entitled to be supported.
(b) If the consent of one spouse is necessary for any transaction of the other, the same may be obtained in a summary proceeding;
(c)If there is an insufficient conjugal property, the separate properties of the husband and wife shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family.
(d)The present spouse, however, cannot just encumber or sell separate properties of the other spouse to satisfy his/her share of the support of the family. There is a need to ask for judicial authority to sell; otherwise, the sale is void.  


 Properties acquired by onerous title during the period of separation in fact of the husband and wife shall redound to the conjugal partnership because the marriage bond has not been severed.

 EFFECT OF SEPARATION. Article 127 is exactly the same as Article 100. Hence, the explanation made in the latter article is applicable also to Art. 127. The spouse who unjustifiably leaves the home is not entitled to support. 

 Under the paragraph 3 of article 127, states that even if one of the spouses left the conjugal home, with or without justifiable reasons, and debt incurred by any spouse for the benefit of the family shall be chargeable to the community property. Their separation in fact will not justify the non-liability of the community property.

Article 128.  If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.


The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or property relations.


A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (168a,191a)


Article 128 and 101 is exactly the same it gives the aggrieved spouse, who is the co-owner of the properties, the right to bring an action to protect his or her interest and her right thereto even before the liquidation or dissolution of the conjugal partnership or gains or the absolute community of property.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 218 and 219 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.   Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school , entity or institution. (349a) Article 218 provides that, the persons and entities given by law special parental authority are the school, its administrators an teachers, or the individual,entity or institution engaged in child care. They are civilly liable for acts and omissions of unemancipated minor. However, the liabilities shall not apply if they proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under a particular circumstances. The liability is still attache while the minor child is under their supervision, instruction and custody and also to all authorized activities inside the premises of ...
Read more

Article 174 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Article 174. Legitimate children shall have the right: (1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames; (2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and (3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code. (264a) Under paragraph 1 of article 174 provides that in the law of surname , it is provided that "legitimate and legitimated shall principally use the surname of the father" (Art.364). But the mother's surname may also be used (Art 174, Family code) Support is everything that is indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, and medical attendance, according to the social position of the family. The right to receive support cannot be renounced, nor can it be transmitted to a third person. Neither...
Read more

Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a) Art. 15 stresses the Nationality principle. Regardless where a Filipino citizen is residing abroad, he or she still govern with Philippine law with respect to his or her family rights and duties  (includes parental authority, marital authority and support), s tatus  (includes personal qualities and relation),  condition and legal capacity . In the Case of:   ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner vs.  HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as presiding judge and Richard Upton respondents. FACTS:  Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a citizen of the Philippines and Richard Upton a private respondent  citizen of the United States were married   in Hongkong in 1972 and after their  marriage they decided to reside here in the Philippines. On 1982, the parties got...
Read more