Articles 111 to 115 of the Family Code

The Family Code of the Philippines

Executive Order No. 209      July 6, 1987

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (n)

Art. 112. The alienation of any exclusive property of a spouse administered by the other automatically terminates the administration over such property and the proceeds of the alienation shall be turned over to the owner-spouse. (n)

Art. 113. Property donated or left by will to the spouses, jointly and with designation of determinate shares, shall pertain to the donee-spouses as his or her own exclusive property, and in the absence of designation, share and share alike, without prejudice to the right of accretion when proper. (150a)

Art. 114. If the donations are onerous, the amount of the charges shall be borne by the exclusive property of the donee spouse, whenever they have been advanced by the conjugal partnership of gains. (151a)

Art. 115. Retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, gratuities, usufructs and similar benefits shall be governed by the rules on gratuitous or onerous acquisitions as may be proper in each case. (n)

           In conjugal partnership of gains, the spouses retain the ownership of their exclusive properties. With respect to these properties, either spouse can perform acts of ownership without the consent of the other spouse. Article 111 specifically enumerates these acts of ownership:

1)      mortgage

2)      encumber

3)      alienate or dispose

4)      litigate

Article 112 provides for the effect of the alienation of the exclusive property by the owner-spouse or by administrator-spouse or by either with the consent of the other or by both spouses. These are:

(1)   the termination of the administration of the designated administrator-spouse

(2)   the turnover of proceeds, if any, to the owner-spouse.

According to Article 113, when spouses are named jointly in a donation or to a testate inheritance, the same forms part of the exclusive properties of the spouses. The shares of each spouse depends on the designation in the donation or will. If there is no specified share, then the spouses would equally share and the right of accretion applies.

According to Albano (2017), “accretion is a right by virtue of which, when two or more persons are called to the same inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share, or who died before the testator, is added or incorporated to that of his co-heirs, co-devisees or co-legatees (Art. 1015, Civil Code).”

For an onerous donation received by a spouse, the exclusive property of such spouse is liable for such donation whenever the conjugal partnership advances for any charges that accompany such donation (Article 114). A donation is said to be onerous when the burdens and charges or future services equal in value if not greater than that of the thing donated.

Under Article 115, benefits such as those from retirements, pensions, annuities, gratuities and usufructs may be conjugal or not. If the source of the accrual of such benefits come from conjugal funds, then such benefits are conjugal.

            In Republic vs. Yahon (G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014), the Supreme Court held that salaries and employee benefits such as those held by the GSIS and Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center can be subject to garnishment and writ of execution to enforce the claims of a spouse who is granted protection under RA 9262 (Anti-violence against Women and Their Children) commonly referred to as the VAWC. The Supreme Court also reiterates that RA 9262 is constitutional and is claims of “economically abused wife” can be enforced against the state. This law is deemed as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity from suits. In short, the conjugality of gratuities, retirement, pension and other similar benefits is immaterial if a wife can successfully prove in court that she has been subjected to “economic abuse” by his husband. She can ask the court to order a government or a non-government entity to withhold the funds payable to his husband and be disbursed to her directly.

Case Digest

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. EDNA A. AZOTE

G.R. No. 209741, April 15, 2015

Facts:

Edna Azote got married to Edgardo Azate in June 19, 1992. After two years of marriage, Edgar submitted Form E-4 to the SSS wherein he designated Edna and their three children as beneficiaries. Seven years later, he resubmitted the same form to include their three younger children.

Edgardo passed away in January 13, 2005. Thereafter, Edna filed a petition with the Social Security Commission to claim death benefits. However, SSC found out that Edgardo had already filed in November 5, 1982 a form designating Rosemarie Azote and Elmer Azote as beneficiaries.

Further investigation by the SSC revealed that prior to the marriage of Edgardo to Edna, he was validly married to Rosemarie as evidenced by the marriage certificate from NSO. There was no evidence that Edgar and Rosemarie’s marriage was declared null and void before Edgar contracted a subsequent marriage with Edna. Thus, the SSC declared Edna’s marriage with Edgar as null and void and denied Edna’s petition to claim benefits.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the SSC. According to the CA, Edna had substantial evidence to prove her marriage with Edgar when she presented her marriage certificates and the baptismal certificates of her children. Edgar’s submission of form E-4, designating her as beneficiary should be considered as a voluntary act of Edgar changing his designated beneficiary.

The SSC elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

            Whether or not Edna was entitled to become a beneficiary of Edgar.

Ruling:

             No. Edna was not entitled to become a beneficiary of Edgar.

            Under Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8282, known as the SSS Law, the word “legal spouse” was clearly and categorically indicated as the one who has the right to be a dependent of an SSS member. Edna was not legally married to Edgar. Edgar’s first marriage was never declared null and void; hence, he cannot validly contract another marriage.

            The SSS law allows the members to designate their beneficiaries. However, Edgardo’s subsequent submission of Form E-4 naming another sets of beneficiary could not be construed as revocation of his original declaration. He should have followed procedures laid down by the SSS Law to validly change his intended beneficiaries.

            The Supreme Court did not give weight on the fact that no one opposed Edna’s SSS claims. Rosemarie’s death prior to Edgar’s death did not cure or legitimize Edna’s status.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen

            The Social Security System has no jurisdiction to declare any marriage null and void. It’s action on Edna’s case was null and void many times over.

            There was no opposition on Edna’s claims. Contesting her marriage for purposes of SSS claims amounts to disturbing domestic peace and disrespecting autonomy of intimate relationship. There was no actual controversy regarding Edna’s marriage with Edgar so the Court must not adjudicate on the same.

                  Important point from Justice Leonen:

            "Edna’s case and a lot more show that without divorce, our laws remain insensitive to a multitude of intimate relations. As people with autonomous and private choices that do no harm to society, they are wholly and immoderately disregarded. This case, like many others, should be basis for Congress to seriously consider the respect due to voluntary adult. choices of our people. A divorce law is no longer a luxury; it has become a just and inevitable necessity."

Reference:

Albano, Ed Vincent (2017). Persons and Family Relations. Central Book Supply Inc.: Manila

-------------------------

by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020

Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019