ONAS v JAVILLO (1934) 59 Phil 733
Crispulo Javillo married Ramona Levis and they had 5 children. After Ramona’s death, he married Rosario Onas and they had 4 children.
– During his first marriage 11 parcels of land were acquired; while in his 2nd marriage 20 parcels of land were acquired.
Partition was made on the claim that the properties of the 2nd marriage were products of the first marriage.
– Rosario Onas was opposing the partition that was made by the administrator of the estate of her husband. She alleges the following errors:
- All the properties acquired during the second marriage were acquired with the properties of the first marriage.
- TC erred in approving the partition dated September 9, 1931, notwithstanding that the same did not include all properties of the deceased.
ISSUES and RULING:
1) WON the community partnership shall continue to exist between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased husband or wife – NO
– When the marriage is dissolved, the cause that brought about the community ceases, for the principles of an ordinary partnership are not applicable to this community, which is governed by special rules.
– Provisions of law governing the subject should cease to have any effect for community of property is admissible and proper in so far as it conforms to unity of life, to the mutual affection between husband and wife, and serves as a recompense for the care of preserving and increasing the property; all of which terminates by the death of one of the partners.
– Community terminates when the marriage is dissolved or annulled or when during the marriage and agreement is entered into to divide the conjugal property. The conjugal partnership exists as long as the spouses are united.
2) WON the properties of the second marriage can be claimed as products of the properties of the first marriage – NO
– Whatever is acquired by the surviving spouse on the dissolution of the partnership by death or presumption of death whether the acquisition be made by his or her lucrative title, it forms a part of his or her own capital, in which the other consort, or his or her heirs, can claim no share.
3) WON the partition that was approved by the lower court is valid – NO
– Was based on the erroneous assumption that the properties of the second marriage were produced by the properties of the first marriage.
** The property corresponding to the first marriage consists of the 11 parcels of land. The remaining 20 parcels of land were acquired during the second marriage.