Article 198:In case the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that the system of absolute community shall govern their property relations during marriage, the following provisions shall be of supplementary application.
EXPLANATION:
What is the system of absolute community?
This is one of the regimes or systems of property relations between the spouses and the default system in the absence of a prenuptial agreement or when the agreed system is null and void. This system commences at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated, and any stipulation for the commencement of the community regime at any other time is void.
In a nutshell, the husband and the wife are considered as co-owners of all properties they bring into the marriage (those that they owned before the marriage), as well as the properties acquired during the marriage, except for certain properties express excluded by law (listed below). The rules on co-ownership applies in all matters not provided under the Family Code.
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT. An agreement made by the parties in contemplation of marriage by which the title to certain property is changed, and the property to some extent becomes tied up, and is rendered inalienable.
It is clearly stated that when the spouses agree in marriage settlement the property relations between husband and wife shall be governed through the system of absolute community the following articles should be followed.
Article 199: In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, the community shall consist of all present and future property of the spouses not excepted by law.
EXPLANATION:
The article above means that if there is absence of agreement on doing the opposite of what is expected or wanted, or in other words IF THERE IS NO AGREEMENT at all, the property relations shall consist of all the present and future property of the spouses, which is not stated in the law. As stated in the Revised Code 1999 of Family Code of the Philippines, Article 89, “ No waiver of rights, interest, shares and effects of the absolute community of property during the marriage can be made except in the case of judicial separation of property.
When the waiver takes place a judicial separation of property, or after the marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall be recorded as provided by law. The creditors of the spouse who made such waiver may petition the court to rescind the waiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amount of their credits.
Article 200: Neither spouse may renounce any inheritance without the consent of the other. In case of conflict, the court shall decide the question, after consulting the family council, if there is any.
EXPLANATION:
There is a need of the consent of the other in renouncing any inheritance, no one from the couple without any evidences or witness. If conflict will be occurred, the court shall decide and take note if there is any family council.
Inheritance here means property received from a decedent, either by will or through state laws of intestate succession, where the decedent has failed to execute a valid will. Whatever one receives upon the death of a relative due to the laws of descent and distribution, when there is no will. However, inheritance has come to mean anything received from the estate of a person who has died, whether by the laws of descent or as a beneficiary of a will or trust.
Article 201: The following shall be excluded from the community:
(1) Property acquired by gratuitous title by either spouse, when it is provided by the donor or testator that it shall not become a part of the community;
(2) Property inherited by either husband or wife through the death of a child by a former marriage, there being brothers or sisters of the full blood of the deceased child;
(3) A portion of the property of either spouse equivalent to the presumptive legitime of the children by a former marriage;
(4) Personal belongings of either spouse.
However, all the fruits and income of the foregoing classes of property shall be included in the community.
EXPLANATION:
The properties excluded from the absolute community of property as above enumerated are separate properties of the spouses.
There are no provisions that apply specifically to the so called paraphernal property of the wife ( as was true in the 1950 Civil Code) or to the capital of the husband. But, the provisions of Article 145, - first sentence (infra) under Chapter 6 (on regime separation of property) can apply with respect to the above properties. Thus, as stated in Article 145 of this Code;“Each spouses shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or her own separate estate, without need of consent of the other.” So also, Article 142 9infra) shall apply to separate properties of spouses who are under the regime of absolute community of property. Article 142 of this code states the instances when the administration of all classes of exclusive property of either spouse may be transferred by the court to the other spouse.
In No.( 1 and 2) above, take note of what is excluded refers to the property acquired gratuitously during the marriage indicating clearly that all properties acquired gratuitously by the spouses before the marriage shall belong to the absolute community of property unless otherwise stipulated in the marriage settlement. If the donor, testator or grantor who gave the property gratuitously to the spouse during the marriage expressly provides in the deed of donation, or in the will or in the deed of grant that the property donated, willed or granted should belong to the absolute community of property, then the property shall form part of the community including fruits thereof of income therefrom. The words “donor, testator or grantor” and the words “gratuitously title.” These words do not cover those acquired by operation of law like those inherited as intestate shares.
In No. (4), it seems obvious that what is for personal and exclusive use of the spouse should belong to him or her as they are his or her personal belongings( therefore, personal property0 like clothing, suitcase, books, etc. except jewelry even he or she personally uses the same which shall belong to the absolute community of property. As already stated, jewelry here refers to the precious metals, stones, etc. which cost dearly or considerably.
In No. (3) above, the property was acquired before the marriage (as his or her separate property or share in the property regime under the former marriage) which shall include the fruits and income of such property. It seems that for this property to be excluded as community property, the condition is that the spouse “has legitimate descendants by a former marriage” as otherwise; the said property shall form part of the absolute community of property, unless otherwise stipulated in the marriage.
Article 202: Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse shall not be paid from the community, unless the same have redounded to the benefit of the family.
EXPLANATION:
It is justified by the principle behind No. 3, Article 91 of the Family Code of the Philippines 2009 Revised Edition as stated “ Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been benefited”supra and in keeping with the rule against unjust enrichment at the expense of innocent third person or creditors.
To the extent that if family is benefited, the community property is answerable even if the ante-nuptial debt is incurred by only one spouse shall not be paid from the community.And to the extent that the family is not benefited, only the separate property of the spouse concerned will be answerable.
Article 203: Debts contracted by both spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other shall be paid from the community. If the common property is insufficient to cover common debts, the same may be enforced against the separate property of the spouses, who shall be equally liable.
EXPLANATION:
The debts contracted during the marriage by the spouse actually administering the community (although the law provides for joint administration, it is impossible to make this work in all cases; as in the case of absence of a spouse where the court may designate in appropriate cases one of the spouses to administer )must be for the benefit of the marriage to make the same properly chargeable to the community property but if the debts were incurred by both spouses or by one with the consent of the other, no benefit need be proved by the creditor to make the community property answerable thereto.
Article 204: Debts contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other shall be chargeable against the community to the extent that the family may have been benefited thereby.
EXPLANATION:
To the extent that the family is benefited, the community property is answerable even if the debt is incurred by only one spouse without the consent of the other; and to the extent that the family is not benefited, only the separate property of the spouse concerned will be answerable.
Article 205: Indemnities that must be paid by either spouse on account of a crime or of a quasi-delict shall be paid from the common assets, without any obligation to make reimbursement.
EXPLANATION:
QUASI DELICT. An act whereby a person, without malice, but by fault, negligence or imprudence not legally excusable, causes injury to another.
2. A quasi delict may be public or private; the neglect of the affairs of a community, when it is our duty to attend to them, may be a crime; the neglect of a private matter, under similar circumstances, may be the ground of a civil action. Bowy. Mod. C. L.
These indemnities shall be paid from the common assets(real property owned by "tenants in common," who each have an "undivided interest" in the entire property.) by only one spouse on account of a crime or of a quasi-delict without any obligation of reimbursement(giving back)
Article 206:The ownership, administration, possession and enjoyment of the common property belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the courts shall settle the difficulty.
EXPLANATION:
Both spouses shall jointly administer and enjoy the community property. In case if disagreement, it is the husband’s decision that shall prevail except when ordered otherwise by the court upon the wife’s recourse to it. The wife has five years to question a contract entered into by the husband arising from the power of administration or enjoyment.
A spouse has the right to enjoy, including the right to use a community property like a car, vacation house, etc. he or she should enjoy or use the same without unjustly depriving the other spouse of his or her right over it.
As to acts of administration, reference may be made to the pertinent rules agency. One spouse may execute acts of administration without getting the consent of the other spouse for to do so may harm the smooth management of the household. Either of the spouses may execute acts of administration but it would be better to consult first the other. For example, if the spouses have placed their community property like apartments in business. Only one spouse may do collection of rentals. Ordinary repairs of these apartments may be initiated by one or either spouse. If a lease on one apartment expires, either spose may enter into a contract or lease with a third person for a period not exceeding one year without the consent of the other. But it was held that leasing a realty is encumbering the same.
Payments for liabilities or responsibilities are acts of administration which either spouse may do. I believe that joint administration means by one or by both of the spouses as opposed to sole administration.
In cases of acts of strict ownership by one spouse, there should be consent of other spouse. acts of compromise, novation, mortgage, lease for more than one year, waiver of rights, etc. are acts of strict dominion and must be consented to by the other spouse.
If one spouse is incapacitated( as when he suffers from serious illness0 or unable to participate in the administration of the common property ( as when he goes abroad on a business trip), the other spouse ( without need of judicial authority ) may assume sole powers of administration.
The powers of administration do not include disposition ( alienation in any form) or encumbrance without the written consent of the other spouse, or without , in the proper case, authority from the court. If a spouse disposes or encumbers a community property ( real or personal) without such consent or authority, such disposition or encumbrance shall be void. But this nature of being void, the transaction ( disposition or encumbrance ) constitutes a continuing offer of the other spouse or authority by the court unless the offer is withdrawn earlier.
Note that there are dispositions that do not consent by both spouses, or authority by the court.
Abuse of the power of administration ( or enjoyment) may take place. Regardless of whether the spouses keep separate accounts or not, one spouse may question and ask for accounting from the other spouse to know if administration is really done properly, prudently and appropriately. It may happen that a rich wife may be a sugar mommy of a young man upon whom she showers material blessings to the utter prejudice of the family and the community or a dishonest husband may be maintaining a querida who gold-digs money, jewelry, etc. from the immoral husband. Or an immoral wife may be buying indiscriminately jewelries at excessive prices that may result in dissipation of the treasures of the community. Accounting may be legally demanded by one spouse against the other spouse or the court may order mutual accounting for the peace of mind of the spouses and the family. The court may, in appropriate case, order separation of property or receivership, or the court may order that the honest spouse assume sole administration of the community or partnership.
Article 207:Neither spouse may alienate or encumber any common property without the consent of the other. In case of unjustifiable refusal by the other spouse, the courts may grant the necessary consent.
EXPLANATION:
Donation of community property, being a disposition of property, must be with the consent of both spouses. It seems clear that authority of the court cannot be a substitute for consent by a spouse.
The following donations may be made by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse:
1. Moderate donations from the community property for charity.
2. Moderate donations on occasions of family rejoicing, either to the other spouse or to the children or to those that fall under the term “ family relations “
3. Moderate donations on occasions of family distress as when a member of the family or an in-law dies.
