Article 73 - Family Code and Case: Arroyo vs. Vasquez de Arroyo

 

Article 73

          Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid, serious, and moral grounds.

          In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:

          a) The objection is proper; and

          b) Benefit has accrued to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent.

          The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in good faith.

Rules if business benefited family.

          There may be questions on the matter of who is liable if benefits would accrue to the family. Here are certain distinctions:

(a) If benefits have accrued to the family before the objection, the absolute community of property or conjugal partnership is liable for damages or the obligations incurred because all the profits and income from the acts or transactions of the spouse who acted without the consent of the other spouse became part of the absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership. The reason for this rule is that no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another

(b) If benefits accrued after the objection, the separate property of the spouse who did not secure the consent of the other shall be solely liable for obligations incurred.

(c) The law says that creditors who acted in good faith are protected. So that, if one of the spouse transacted with a creditor without the consent of the other spouse but the creditor did not know of the absence of such consent, the absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership shall be liable. This is particularly so if the family benefited out of the transaction. Again, the rule is that, no one shall enrich himself at the expense of another.

MARIANO B. ARROYO, vs. DOLORES C. VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

G.R. No. L-17014, August 11, 1921

Facts:

          Respondent, Dolores C. Vasquez De Arroyo, was married to Mariano B. Arroyo. Respondent left their conjugal home and decided to live on her own. Mariano, the herein petitioner, filed an action to compel her wife to return to her conjugal home. The respondent contested that she left because she avoided the violence incurred by her husband.

Issue:

          Whether the court can compel the respondent to return to their conjugal home.

Held:

          No. We are therefore unable to hold that Mariano B. Arroyo in this case is entitled to the unconditional and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile, which is sought in the petitory part of the complaint; though he is, without doubt, entitled to a judicial declaration that his wife has presented herself without sufficient cause and that it is her duty to return.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more