Family Code of the Philippines

SC Judges have often ruled that Absolute Community Property (including Real Property) MUST be co owned. They have also declared that an Alien, married to a Filipino cannot be an owner or co owner of Real Property (by virtue of the Constitution). What are the implications for this- that in the above case the Real Property cannot be part of ACP and that Art 91 of the Code is flawed? What form of ownership then is afforded to the Filipino since the Real Property cannot be either classed as exclusive or personal?

Ask ko Lang po kung meron akong ground to file annulment... I was married at the age of 17 and my husband was 20 years then... But we have permission fromour parents and guardian. Six months after marriage we separated. We are now 30 years separated. We both have our own family. Pwede na po ba akong mag file ng annulment.

enen, were you married before 1986?

It is my belief that ANY property being ACP (or conjugal after 1986)does not necessarily have to be co owned. This includes real property in the case of an alien/filipino marriage. cf Art 484 Civil Code for definition of co ownership

royal, based on jurisprudence, the real property becomes exclusive of the filipino spouse

Thank you atty. I AGREE with you that jurisprudence says it becomes absolute ppty of spouse. My point is that this is "transfer" from ACP to Exclusive is NOT permitted by the FCP law.
Something has to give? I suggest it stays as ACP but not co owned which offers the protection which FCP envisages?

AttyLLL.... We were married year 1973.

Atty Sir, There is the possibility that there are thousands of examples of an EXCLUSIVE property of one spouse- not co owned- that nevertheless should be considered part of ACP. Could an example of this be- a husbands expensive membership to a males only exclusive golf club bought with ACP funds.

royal, exclusive use does not always amount to exclusive ownership. what club prohibits females from having shares?

the family code is a legislative law, but it is the constitution which prohibits aliens from owning real property, and that is the higher law.

my statement that the filipino spouse is exclusive owner is a bit simplistic. the way the court actually looks at is that aliens should not try to circumvent our laws, when they do, they will not get any protection, and they are left as they are.

en, back in 73, you were allowed to marry at 17. so that's not a ground. separation for 30 years isn't either. maybe you will outlive him or he can be presumed dead if it can be shown that he is likely dead.

thank you attyLLL, he is still very much alive, what if he is also willing to annull our marriage. please help and advice me on what to do... thank you again.enen-65

Atty LLL. Thank you again. My entire point is that- in the case of an alien Filipino marriage Real Property can be part of ACP even though it is not owned or co owned by the alien.

enen, search for 'grounds for annulment' in the forum. it's not an issue of willingness (though it helps if it extends to defray legal costs), but of proving that a valid ground exists to annul the marriage.

Atty LLL. Again thanks for your insights. To answer your question -yes, such clubs exist-also Males only HEALTH GYMS.
Further example- my friend owns a very expensive set of unique weapons REGISTRERED in his name alone. Is it your opinion that under Art 92 this would be considered as EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY (for personal and exclusive use)or does Art 92 refer only to such things as dentures and wigs etc?
Would the ownership of the weapons be Excluded from ACP? Exclusive Property seems defined for Conjugal Partnership of Gains (Art 109) but not for ACP (unless the exclusions in Art 92 infers Exclusive Property)?. Would you care to comment please?

i would argue those weapons are part of conjugal property. registration is not conclusive.