When Love Turns Bitter  

Atty. Farah G. Decano

 

LOVE is sweet.

The world around suddenly turns into a dreamland of pastel colors; of chocolates and candies; of butterflies and unicorns; and of roses with shades of red, violet, and blue. So calm. Everything about the subject of love is perfect.

Love is spicy.

The world shifts to an increasingly exhilarating realm.  Electric current travels along the night sky, thus, generating thunderbolts and lightning.  There is urgency to take flight to the embrace of the lover.

But love can turn sour.

The world moves gradually, however, to the wrong direction. Weather disturbances inspire the formation of nimbus clouds and occasional gusty winds.  Raindrops start to fall. The subject of affection begins to falter and disappoint.

Finally, love can be bitter.

The world shakes turbulently. Volcanoes erupt and tectonic plates rearrange themselves underneath the oceans causing giant tsunamis to inundate pasturelands.  The annihilation of love commences.

When love becomes bitter, hell breaks loose.  And, hell could mean protracted and painful court battles.   We know that love is dead when the legal dispute goes to the level of unpleasant division of properties.

Property regime between couples is as flavorful as love. The former depends on the relations of the couple. For married couples without any pre-nuptial agreement, they are governed by the absolute community property regime. This means that whatever properties and funds acquired and earned before the wedding, including those acquired and earned during the marriage, form part of the community property.  Spouses cannot dispose any of these properties without the consent of the other. Any disposition by one spouse without the concurrence of the other is void. When the marriage is terminated or when there is a declaration of the termination of property relations, the community properties are divided equally between the spouses.

Co-ownership governs the property relations of those whose marriage is void or those who cohabit as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage but are capacitated to marry each other. The law governing this set-up provides three presumptions in the absence of proof to the contrary:  First, it presumes that properties acquired during the cohabitation were obtained by joint efforts, work, or industry; second, the properties are owned by them in equal shares; and third, the spouse who merely rendered household work and maintenance of family is deemed to have contributed in the acquisition of their belongings.  Hence, at the end of the cohabitation, the properties owned in common shall be divided equally by the live-in partners, in the absence of proof of the extent of contribution of the spouses.

The rules become different when the cohabitation involves a couple who are both or either one is disqualified to get married. There is no presumption that properties acquired during their cohabitation are owned in common. There must be proof of actual contribution to determine the extent of share of each in the properties.  When the proportion of contribution cannot be proven, then the sharing is presumed equal.  This means that, before the presumption of equal sharing in the properties applies, there must first be proof of actual contribution.

Because some relationships turn bitter, here is an advice for those who are involved in the last described cohabitation:   Keep those receipts and be ready with your income tax return. Prove your contribution and your capacity to contribute.

(Note: I merely simplified the laws on property relations. Above are merely general rules and do not include the exceptions. Sources: Articles 91, 147, and 148 of the Family Code of the Philippines; Atienza v. De Castro, G.R. 169698, November 29, 2006; Agapay v. Palang, 342 Phil. 302 [1997])

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments