What Are The Exclusive Properties Of Spouses In A Conjugal Partnership?

• Property purchased before the marriage and fully paid during the marriage remains to be a separate property of either spouse.

• In a Conjugal Partnership of Gains, all property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.

• Property bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage.

In a Conjugal Partnership of Gains, the spouses place in a common fund the proceeds, products, and fruits and income of their separate properties and those acquired thereafter through their efforts or by chance.

Under the Family Code

The following shall remain exclusive property of the owner spouse:

1. That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

2. That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;

3. That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the spouses; and

4. That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband. (Art. 109, FC)

Property purchased before the marriage and fully paid during the marriage remains to be a separate property of either spouse. And, if a future spouse sold his property with right to repurchase before the marriage and reacquired it during the marriage, such property is still the exclusive property of said spouse. However, if the money he or she paid for the repurchase came from the conjugal assets, then, the said spouse must reimburse the conjugal partnership. Note, however, that the reimbursement shall be done at the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.

In case the property has been donated to or inherited by one of the spouses, the said property shall be an exclusive property of such spouse. Accordingly, if someone donates to a married couple a parcel of land, the said land will not be conjugal, but separate property of the spouse, each spouse owning one half of the property. And if a different proportion or designation of shares is made, such will be followed.

• Purchase of Property

In a Conjugal Partnership of Gains, when there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by a spouse, the fact that the title is in one of the spouse’s name, is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to the said spouse. Consequently, if a property is purchased partly with money of the wife and partly with conjugal money, the same is partly conjugal and partly exclusive.

• Presumption of Inclusion of Property In The Conjugal Partnership of Gains

In a Conjugal Partnership of Gains, 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. The presumption of conjugality of properties acquired by onerous title during the marriage arises regardless of the source of the funds used to acquire the same.

• Property on Installment

Property bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage. And the property belongs to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the marriage. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership. (Art. 118, FC)

48% of the Filipinos Feel Insecure About property rights.

We know that every day, people around the world are being evicted from

their homes and pushed off their land.

An even higher number of people live in fear that, sometime soon, they

may be forced out.

The global pandemic has added additional pressure while making the need for a

stable place to live all the more urgent.

Having to worry about leaving your home or land is detrimental to the wellbeing and livelihoods of individuals and households forced to contend with the insecurity. It is also detrimental to society as well as the economy as a whole. Without confidence that rights

will be protected, people will shy away from making productive and sustainable investments in their land, homes, and businesses. Improving the security of

property rights also has a significant positive effect on wellbeing, stimulating improvements in quality of life.

In 2015, land and property rights were recognized as an important pathway for reducing poverty and empowering women when they were placed at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Despite the recognition of how important secure land and property rights are to global development, we have not had a reliable picture of where and how they are lacking. Until now.

Between 2018 and 2020, Prindex, a joint initiative of the Overseas Development

Institute (ODI) and Global Land Alliance (GLA), carried out a nationally representative survey of adults in 140 countries. The result is that, for the first time, a global

dataset that quantifies land and property insecurity and allows comparability between countries is now available.

The findings are sobering.

Nearly 1 billion people around the world consider it likely or very likely that

they will be evicted from their land or property in the next five years. This represents nearly 1 in 5 adults in the 140 countries surveyed. Within certain countries

and regions, and among certain groups, insecurity is even higher.

Insecurity is a global problem. Rates of perceived insecurity are lowest in Europe and Central Asia (12%), North America (14%) and East Asia and the Pacific (15%), and highest in sub-Saharan Africa (26%), and the Middle East and North Africa (28%). Rates in Latin

America and the Caribbean (21%) lie in between these two poles.

When interpreting these averages, regional population matters. East Asia and Pacific, with 275 million people, and South Asia, with 269 million people, jointly account

for around 56% of global population and are together home to 57% of those who perceive their property rights to be insecure. Policy interventions targeting

these regions could have a high development impact and facilitate progress toward achieving SDG 1.4.2 and other global development goals.

Four groups, however, stand out as being particularly vulnerable:

1. Women in sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly one in two (48%) women in sub-Saharan Africa feel insecure about their land and property rights when faced with the prospect of widowhood or divorce.

2. Urban dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa and the Philippines. People living in cities experience higher levels of insecurity than those living in rural areas (18% vs. 16%). The difference between levels of insecurity among urban and rural respondents

is widest in sub-Saharan Africa (27% vs. 22%).

Insecurity among urban citizens is also a major driver of insecurity in many Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines (49% vs. 44%).

3. Young people, especially those with basic levels of education or low incomes in high-income countries. Overall, 24% of young people aged 18-25 felt insecure

compared to just 11% of people aged above 65.

4. Renters, especially in the Middle East. A higher proportion of renters feel insecure than owners (34% vs. 9%) across all regions. Nearly half of renters in

the Middle East and North Africa (45%) feel insecure about their property rights.

CASE STUDY : INSECURITY IN CITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

As of 2020, the Philippines is projected to have nearly 49 million people living in towns and cities, rising to over 59 million by 2030; over half of these will live in Mega-Manila, an area that covers five provinces centring around Metro Manila.

About 20 million of the Philippines’ urban population live in slums. Many lack adequate access to water, housing, sanitation, education, health, and employment.

Of the adult respondents living in towns and cities in the Philippines, 49% report themselves as tenure insecure. This is equivalent to 24 million people who expect, along with their children, to be forced off their land and out of their property over the next five years. This figure could rise to nearly 30 million if current rates of tenure insecurity persist.

Unless this changes, these people could struggle to plan for the future or have a stable base for finding employment. Risk of eviction can loom large, with those living in informal settlements being relocated to new locations by the government.

source: Prindex