Marriage entered into between plaintiff noel a

This preview shows page 130 - 132 out of 262 pages.

marriage entered into between plaintiff Noel A. Buenaventura and defendant IsabelLucia Singh Buenaventura null and void ab initio.ISSUE:Whether or not the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties shouldbe governed by the rules on co-ownership.RULING:Yes. Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo werefound, both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, to have been acquired during theunion of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of aseparate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in saiddistribution. The liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties owned in commonby the parties herein as ordered by the court a quo should, therefore, be sustained, buton the basis of co-ownership and not of the regime of conjugal partnership of gains.8) Abing vs. WaeyanJuly 31, 2006FACTS:Sometime in 1986, John and respondent Juliet Waeyan met and fell in lovewith each other. The duo cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit ofmarriage. They bought a 2-storey residential house from one Benjamin Macua whichwas erected on a lot owned by a certain Alejandro. Consequent to the purchase, the taxdeclaration of the 2-storey house was transferred in the name of Juliet. On December 2,1991, Juliet left for overseas employment in Korea. She would send money to John whodeposited the same in their joint bank account. In 1992, the original 2-storey residentialhouse underwent renovation. To it was annexed a new structure which housed a sari-sari store. This new structure and the sari-sari store thereat are the properties involvedin this case. In 1994, Juliet returned from Korea and continued to live with John. Shemanaged the sari-sari store while John worked as a mine employee. In 1995, therelationship between the two turned from bad to worse. Hence, they decided to partitiontheir properties. For the purpose, they executed a Memorandum of Agreement.Unfortunately, the document was left unsigned by the parties although signed by thewitnesses thereto. Under their unsigned agreement, John shall leave the couplesdwelling with Juliet paying him the amount of P428,870.00 representing John’s share inall their properties. Juliet paid John the sum of P232,397.66 by way of partial paymentof his share, with the balance of P196,472.34 to be paid by Juliet in twelve monthlyinstallment beginning November 1995. Juliet, however, failed to make good the balance.John demanded of her to vacate the annex structure housing the sari-sari store. Julietrefused, prompting John to file an ejectment suit against her before the MTC ofMankayan, Benguet. John alleged that he alone spent for the construction of the annex
structure with his own funds and thru money he borrowed from his relatives. Johnclaimed exclusive ownership of the subject structure, which thereby gave him the rightto eject Juliet therefrom upon the latter’s failure to pay the agreed balance due himunder the aforementioned Memorandum of Agreement.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 262 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
Atty. Zamora

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture