Spouse consent required to sale of conjugal property

Query:
Is the written consent of one spouse required to dispose or encumber conjugal/common property?

There should be no dispute that either spouse cannot alienate or dispose of conjugal property without the written consent of the other.
The codal reference to this is the second paragraph of Article 96 and 124 of the Family Code which states:
“In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse my assume the sole powers of administration. These powers however do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that the authority of the court allowing one spouse to dispose or encumber any common property may be sought only if the other spouse is incapacitated.
The Supreme Court in Thelma a. Jader-Manalo vs. Norma Fernandez C. Camaisa and Edilberto Camaisa [G.R. No. 147978. January 23, 2002] referred to the comment of civil law expert Arturo Tolentino who in his book said that "As a result of this joint ownership, neither spouse may alienate or encumber any common property without the written consent of the other, or, if the other spouse is incapacitated, authorization of the court."
If the other spouse is not incapacitated, his or her written consent to the disposition or encumbrance is indispensable, subject of course to certain exceptions.
Are there instances where the disposal by one spouse of conjugal property without the written consent of the other may be valid?
Yes.
In Estela Costuna versus Laureana Domondon, [G.R. 82753 December 19, 1989], the Supreme Court allowed the husband to sell his ½ share of the conjugal property even without the consent of the wife because the wife unjustifiably withheld her consent to the sale.
This case tells us that one spouse cannot even sell his own ½ share without the consent of the other spouse, save only when the refusal to consent was unjustifiable.
In this case, the wife refused to give her consent to the sale of conjugal land even if the proceeds of the sale were to be used for the sick husband’s hospital expenses.
The Court said the wife was greedy because previously, the husband had executed a will naming her as the sole heir.
Naturally, the wife greedily refused to consent to the sale because she wanted the whole conjugal property intact to herself.

Properties exclusive to each spouse only

Are there things that are excluded from the absolute community property of the spouses?
There are a few things though that are excluded by law from the absolute community. This means that each spouse owns it, to the exclusion of the other. The list is enumerated in Article 92.
The first is that property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse (by donation, testament, by grant).
The fruits and income of these kind of property are likewise exclusive to the recipient spouse, unless the donor, testator or grantor says that such fruits or income should go to the community property.
The second type of property that will not go to the community are those for the personal and exclusive use of either spouse. For example, panties, bra, make up . These are for personal use, hence exclusive.
What if the wife has a panty that is embroidered all over with expensive diamonds? Can the wife say it has hers only because it is for her personal use?
The answer is no. The law says “however jewelry shall form part of the community property.” She can have the panty, but the jewelry shall be owned jointly.
The third exclusive property are those property acquired before marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits and income of such property.
Please take note, it must be LEGITIMATE (not illegitimate) descendants.

Legal Query: "in the name of one spouse only"

I received a legal query from a disturbed wife. In a nutshell, this is her question:
Husband and wife bought a land. In the deed of sale the vendee’s name was that only of the husband and not the wife. In the absence of any ante nuptial agreement, is the land owned by the husband only, or both the husband and wife?
The land purchased is owned by both the husband and the wife.
According to Article 75 of the Family Code, In the absence of marriage settlement, the system of absolute community property shall govern.
Article 88 of the Family Code says that the absolute community property between spouses commence at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated. So if the spouses were married on December 20, 1998, then the absolute community property commenced at that time.
According to Article 91, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of marriage or acquired thereafter.
That is why it is called “absolute community”. Everything brought to the marriage, and those acquired later during the marriage belongs to the both the spouses.
So if the land is bought during the marriage in an absolute community regime, even if it is in the name of one spouse only (commonly the ownership of title is described “X married to Y”), the property belongs to both.
So the wife should not worry that the title is in the name of the husband. Even if this property was acquired by the husband before they were married (unless the husband has legitimate children from a previous marriage), at the precise moment of celebration of marriage, the property is owned by both of them.
That is the law.
Also the law expressly states in Article 93 that Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom.
Thus, as long as a property is acquired DURING THE MARRIAGE, it is presumed to be jointly owned by both spouses.
As a matter of fact Article 116 of the Family Code is more emphatic: All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.
Article 116 is explained by the Supreme Court in Procopio Villanueva versus Court of Appeals G.R. No. 143286. April 14, 2004.

Jobless lawyers

Yesterday I met sposues Cathy and Bong, both lawyers.
It's been a while since I last saw the two.
I asked him about his government job. To my knoweldge he was an assistant secretary of a top governemnt agency.
I left, he said. I have been jobless since October, he added.
Bong volunteered: And so is my wife, she's gonna be jobless too.
I asked, "Why is that?"
Her boss, the Secretary of Naitonal Defense, Nonong Cruz just tendered his irrevocable resignation that day.
Cathy is also an assistant secretary of the DND.
Like her boss, she will stay on until the end of November.
Both are connected with "The Firm". I recall they were associates of the law firm after graduation.
When "The Firm's" political clout expanded when Gloria Arroyo ascended to power, many of the firm's lawyers invaded government.
Even during the early days of the Arroyo presidency, I was in the Executive House where the Executive Secretary held office. I saw familiar faces, lawyers of "The Firm" literally walking the corridors of power.
My law school classmate John was assistant to one of "The Firm's" partners who was appointed to a top government post.
When his boss resigned, John also left.
Indeed in politics, nothing's permanent.

Alternative to Lex Libris?

Apparently there is an alternative, or better yet, a competitor to Lex Libris of CD Asia.

CD Asia Inc. is the reigning supplier of a comprehensive collection of Phlippine laws in compact discs.

Via subscription, CD Asia supplies Philippine case law (jurisprudence), statutes, ande other important legal documents.

These CD Asia items do not come cheap, a complkete subscrption could cost between P60,000 to P100,000, depending on the types of discs subscribed.

Its quite expensive.

Now here comes "e-library" in what appears to give CD Asia a run for its money.

During a legal seminar I was attending, brochures were distributed.

Essentially it provides a complete supply of Philippine case law, and statutes for a shocking price of only P3,000 each disc. If you buy the two, meaning jurisprudence and statutes, one can get a discount of P1,500, so the cost would only be P4,500.

The only problem with the distributors was that they were not ready for a demonstration.

With these kind of products, a demonstration is indispensable so customers will know its features and capabilities.

They promised to give a demo.

If this comes via subscription also, then it is a much cheaper alternative to Lex Libris.