Property Relations of Spouses Philippines

Answer Summary

Under the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209), the default property regime for marriages celebrated on or after August 3, 1988 is the Absolute Community of Property (ACP). If no marriage settlement (prenuptial agreement) is executed, the system of absolute community governs. For marriages celebrated before August 3, 1988 under the Civil Code without a marriage settlement, the default regime is the Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG), and this regime is not automatically converted to ACP by the Family Code’s effectivity. Spouses may, by a marriage settlement executed before marriage, choose among absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime not contrary to law. The essential difference between ACP and CPG is that ACP pools all property owned at the time of marriage and all property acquired thereafter (with limited statutory exclusions), while CPG retains separate ownership of property brought into the marriage or acquired gratuitously, and places only the fruits, income, and property acquired for valuable consideration during marriage into the common fund. Marriage settlements must be in writing, executed before marriage, and registered in the local civil registry and property registries to bind third persons; modification after marriage is generally prohibited.

The governing statutory provisions are Articles 74, 75, 76, 77, 88, 91, 92, 105, 106, 121, 122, and 124 of the Family Code. The leading Supreme Court decisions are: Efren Pana v. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201, 10 December 2012 (holding that pre-Family Code CPG is not converted to ACP and that marriage settlements cannot be modified after marriage); Antonia R. Dela Peña v. Avila, G.R. No. 187490, 8 February 2012 (proof of acquisition during coverture is a condition sine qua non for the presumption of conjugality); Ayala Investment & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, 12 February 1998 (conjugal partnership is not liable for a surety agreement absent proof of benefit to the family); and Belinda Alexander v. Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona, G.R. No. 246445, 2 March 2021 (alienation of conjugal property without spousal consent is void under the Family Code but only voidable under the Civil Code). A comprehensive ruling in G.R. No. 230934 (2020) reiterates that the default regime for post-Family Code marriages is ACP, and that remarriage without liquidating the prior marriage’s property imposes mandatory complete separation of property on the subsequent marriage.

The essential elements for a valid regime choice are: (1) a written marriage settlement executed before the celebration of marriage; (2) registration in the local civil registry and the Registry of Deeds to bind third parties; and (3) for post-marriage modification, a judicial decree of separation of property under Articles 134 to 136 of the Family Code on specified grounds. The most frequent failure points are: failure to register the marriage settlement, rendering it ineffective against third persons; inability to prove that property was acquired during the marriage, thereby preventing the presumption of conjugality from operating (Dela Peña); creditors’ failure to present evidence that a husband’s surety obligation actually redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership (Ayala Investment, Security Bank and Trust Co. v. Mar Tierra Corp., G.R. No. 143382, 29 November 2006); and the mistaken belief that the Family Code automatically converted all pre-existing CPG regimes into ACP (Efren Pana).

The Family Code (effective 3 August 1988) shifted the default regime from the conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil Code to the absolute community of property. Marriages contracted before that date continue under CPG unless a marriage settlement provided otherwise. Based on comprehensive database and web research, the most recent authorities are G.R. No. 230934 (2020) and Alexander v. Escalona (2021), confirming that the legal framework remains stable.

Section I — Issue Overview

1. What property regimes exist under the Family Code, and what regime governs a marriage with no settlement? The Family Code recognizes absolute community of property, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, and any other regime not contrary to law. For marriages after its effectivity, the default is absolute community; for those before, the default is conjugal partnership of gains, and the Code does not convert the latter automatically.

2. How do the absolute community of property and the conjugal partnership of gains differ in terms of ownership and management? Under ACP, all property owned at marriage or acquired thereafter becomes part of a single community mass; under CPG, each spouse retains exclusive ownership of property brought into the marriage or acquired by gratuitous title, while only the fruits and income become conjugal. Management of community or conjugal property generally requires the consent of both spouses.

3. What property is included in or excluded from each regime? The ACP includes all property except property acquired by gratuitous title (and its fruits/income) unless the donor or testator provides otherwise, property for personal and exclusive use except jewelry, and property acquired before marriage by a spouse with legitimate descendants from a former marriage. The CPG includes as conjugal property the fruits, income, and property acquired by onerous title during the marriage, while the separate property of each spouse consists of that brought into the marriage, acquired by gratuitous title, or used for personal purposes.

4. How do marriage settlements (prenuptial agreements) work, including formalities, validity, and modification? A marriage settlement must be in writing, executed before the celebration of marriage, and registered in the local civil registry and the property registries to affect third parties. It may adopt any lawful regime. Modification after the marriage is generally not allowed; however, judicial separation of property may be decreed during the marriage on grounds specified in Articles 134 to 136 of the Family Code.

Section II — Legal Analysis

Issue 1: What property regimes exist, and what is the default regime when no marriage settlement is executed?

Applicable Laws & Issuances

The governing law is the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209). The hierarchy of governance is set out in Article 74: property relations are governed first by marriage settlements, then by the provisions of the Code, and finally by local custom. Article 75 provides that future spouses may agree upon absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime; “In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern.” Article 76 states that any modification in the marriage settlements must be made before the celebration of the marriage. For marriages existing before the Family Code, Article 105 provides that the provisions on conjugal partnership of gains in the Family Code apply to those already established, without prejudice to vested rights under the Civil Code, as preserved by Article 256.

Case Law Analysis

Efren Pana v. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201 — 10 December 2012 (J. Del Castillo)

Focus of Dispute: Whether conjugal partnership properties could be levied to satisfy the civil liability of one spouse arising from a criminal conviction, and whether the Family Code automatically converted a pre-existing conjugal partnership of gains into absolute community.

Facts: Spouses Efren and Melecia Pana were married before the Family Code took effect. They had no prenuptial agreement. Melecia was convicted of a crime and ordered to pay civil indemnity. The trial court levied on real properties registered in both spouses’ names. Efren argued that the marriage was governed by conjugal partnership of gains and that the properties were conjugal, not subject to execution for the wife’s personal debt.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (husband): The marriage was celebrated under the Civil Code and thus governed by conjugal partnership of gains; the Family Code did not automatically convert the property regime to absolute community.
• Respondent (heirs): The conjugal properties could be executed upon; the trial court’s levy was valid.

Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision to enforce the civil indemnity against the conjugal properties but modified it, requiring that the obligations under Article 121 of the Family Code be satisfied first.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that “the conjugal partnership of gains that governed the marriage between Efren and Melecia who were married prior to 1988 cannot be modified except before the celebration of that marriage.” It explained that Article 256 of the Family Code “does not intend to reach back and automatically convert into absolute community of property relation all conjugal partnerships of gains that existed before 1988.” The Court stressed that Article 76 prohibits modification of marriage settlements after marriage, and that to automatically change existing regimes would impair vested rights to separate properties. The Court also applied Article 122 of the Family Code regarding the order of payment from conjugal partnership assets.

“Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136.”

Evidence Evaluated: The parties did not present any marriage settlement; the marriage date was established. The Court took judicial notice of the legal regime.

Precedential Status: Good law; a leading case on the non-conversion of pre-Family Code conjugal partnerships.

G.R. No. 230934 — 2 December 2020 (Supreme Court, Division unspecified in web source)

Focus of Dispute: The case involved property relations upon the death of a spouse and the consequences of remarriage without prior liquidation, requiring the Court to articulate the default regimes and the rules on liquidation and subsequent property regimes.

Key Holdings: The Court reiterated that the default property regime for marriages under the Family Code is absolute community (Art. 91) unless a marriage settlement stipulates otherwise; for marriages under the Civil Code without a settlement, the regime is conjugal partnership of gains (Art. 105, FC; Art. 175, CC). Upon the death of a spouse, the conjugal partnership terminates and an implied co-ownership ensues pending liquidation. If the surviving spouse remarries without liquidating the prior marriage’s property within one year, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property governs the subsequent marriage (Art. 130, par. 3; Art. 103 applied analogously).

“Under the Family Code, the default property regime for marriages after its effectivity is absolute community (Art. 91) unless a marriage settlement stipulates otherwise. For marriages under the Civil Code without a settlement, the regime is conjugal partnership of gains (Art. 105, FC; Art. 175, CC).”

Evidence Evaluated: Not specified in the snippet; the ruling was largely on legal interpretation.

Precedential Status: Good law; recent pronouncement confirming the long-standing interpretation.

Doctrinal Synthesis

The Family Code establishes three named regimes—absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, and complete separation of property—and allows any other lawful regime. The default for post-3 August 1988 marriages is ACP; for pre-Family Code marriages, it is CPG. The automatic conversion argument was squarely rejected in Efren Pana, preserving vested separate-property rights. The 2020 ruling in G.R. No. 230934 confirms that the default ACP/CGP divide remains in force and adds the important consequence that remarriage without liquidation triggers compulsory complete separation of property for the new marriage. Practitioners must always check the date of marriage and whether a registered marriage settlement exists.

Recent Developments

The 2020 Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 230934 is the most recent authoritative statement on default regimes. It does not alter but reaffirms existing principles. No subsequent legislation or Supreme Court rulings from 2024-2026 were identified on this specific issue.

Analysis

For any client inquiry, the first step is to determine the date of marriage and the existence of a registered marriage settlement. If the marriage was celebrated on or after 3 August 1988 and no settlement exists, ACP applies. If the marriage was celebrated before that date and no settlement exists, CPG applies. The parties cannot alter the regime by simple agreement after marriage; only a judicial decree of separation of property under Articles 134-136 can effect a change during marriage. The Efren Pana ruling underscores that pre-1988 couples remain under CPG and must liquidate accordingly, not as ACP.

Issue 2: How do the absolute community of property and the conjugal partnership of gains differ in terms of ownership and management?

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Article 88 of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) provides that absolute community commences at the precise moment of marriage. Article 91 states that the community property comprises all property owned by the spouses at the time of marriage or acquired thereafter, except those excluded by law. In contrast, Article 106 defines conjugal partnership of gains: “the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance.” Article 117 enumerates what constitutes conjugal partnership property, distinguishing it from the exclusive property of each spouse. Regarding management, Article 124 requires the consent of both spouses for the disposition or encumbrance of any conjugal or community property; an act performed without such consent or court authority is void under the Family Code.

Case Law Analysis

Antonia R. Dela Peña v. Avila, G.R. No. 187490 — 8 February 2012 (J. Perez)

Focus of Dispute: Whether a residential land registered in the wife’s name was conjugal or her exclusive paraphernal property, and whether the sale without the husband’s consent was void.

Facts: Antonia Dela Peña, married to Antegono Dela Peña, obtained a loan and mortgaged a property titled solely in her name “married to” her husband. She later sold it to Gemma Avila. Her son and she sued, claiming the property was conjugal and the sale void for lack of husband’s consent and liquidation.

Disposition: The Court held that the property was the wife’s exclusive paraphernal property because the petitioners failed to prove it was acquired during the marriage—a prerequisite for the presumption of conjugality.

Ratio Decidendi:

“Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. The party who asserts this presumption must first prove said time element. … the phrase ‘married to’ is merely descriptive of the civil status of the wife and cannot be interpreted to mean that the husband is also a registered owner.”

The case confirms that under CPG, property acquired before marriage remains the separate property of the acquiring spouse.

Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Pesons, G.R. No. 196213 — 27 March 2017

Focus of Dispute: Validity of a real estate mortgage over a conjugal property when the wife’s signature was forged.

Disposition: The mortgage was void for lack of the wife’s consent. Under the conjugal partnership of gains, a husband cannot encumber conjugal property without the wife’s consent. The Court emphasized that notarization does not cure a forged signature and that the presumption of regularity was rebutted by expert testimony.

Ayala Investment & Development Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 118305 — 12 February 1998 (J. Panganiban)

Focus of Dispute: Whether the conjugal partnership was liable for a surety agreement executed by the husband to secure a corporate loan.

Disposition: The Court held that the conjugal partnership was not liable because the creditor failed to prove that the debt redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

Ratio Decidendi:

“Where the husband acts only as a surety or guarantor for another’s loan—‘that contract cannot, by itself, alone be categorized as falling within the context of ‘obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership.’ … Proof must be presented to establish benefit redounding to the conjugal partnership.”

The case illustrates the limitation on conjugal partnership liability, a key difference from ACP where all obligations incurred for the family’s benefit are chargeable to the community.

Security Bank and Trust Co. v. Mar Tierra Corp., G.R. No. 143382 — 29 November 2006 (J. Garcia)

Focus of Dispute: Similar to Ayala, the husband acted as surety for a corporate debt. The Court applied Article 121(2) of the Family Code and ruled that no presumption of benefit arises from a surety agreement; the creditor must prove actual benefit. This further reinforces the doctrine.

Doctrinal Synthesis

The fundamental distinction is ownership structure. Under ACP, there is a single patrimony; each spouse has an inchoate interest in the entire mass. Under CPG, there are three distinct funds: the husband’s exclusive property, the wife’s exclusive property, and the common conjugal partnership property. Proof of when a property was acquired is critical to classification under CPG, as Dela Peña demonstrates. Consent of both spouses is required to encumber or dispose of community or conjugal property under Article 124; a transfer without consent is void under the Family Code, though the effect differs for pre-Family Code transactions (voidable). The cases on surety agreements underscore that CPG liability is not automatic—the spouse dealing with the partnership must prove the transaction’s benefit to the family.

Recent Developments

The 2021 ruling in Belinda Alexander v. Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona clarified that for transactions after the Family Code’s effectivity, a sale or encumbrance of conjugal property without the other spouse’s consent is void, while for pre-Family Code transactions it is voidable. This distinction is crucial for practitioners dealing with older titles.

Analysis

When advising clients on property classification under CPG, always trace the date of acquisition and source of funds. If the property was acquired during marriage, the presumption of conjugality will apply only if that temporal element is proved. Under ACP, all property acquired during marriage is prima facie community property unless falling within the enumerated exclusions. In both regimes, any disposition requires spousal consent; a missing consent under the Family Code renders the contract void, providing strong protection to the non-consenting spouse.

Issue 3: What property is included in or excluded from the absolute community and the conjugal partnership of gains?

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Absolute Community of Property (Family Code, Executive Order No. 209):

• Article 91: All property owned by the spouses at the time of marriage or acquired thereafter belongs to the absolute community.
• Article 92 — Exclusions:
  1. Property acquired by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits and income thereof, unless the donor or testator expressly provides that they shall form part of the community.
  2. Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse (except jewelry).
  3. Property acquired before marriage by a spouse with legitimate descendants from a former marriage, and its fruits and income.
• Article 93: Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community unless proven to be excluded.

Conjugal Partnership of Gains (Family Code, Executive Order No. 209):

• Article 106: The husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits, and income from their separate properties and those acquired through their efforts or by chance.
• Article 117: Conjugal partnership property consists of: (a) Property acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund; (b) Fruits, income, and interest due or received during the marriage from the common property; (c) Share of hidden treasure found by either spouse; (d) Property acquired by occupation; (e) Improvements made on the separate property of either spouse at the expense of the partnership. The exclusive property of each spouse includes: property brought into the marriage; property acquired by gratuitous title; property acquired by right of redemption or barter of exclusive property; and property purchased with exclusive money.

Case Law Analysis

The most pertinent case is Dela Peña v. Avila, discussed under Issue 2, which established that under CPG, the party invoking the presumption of conjugality must first prove that the property was acquired during marriage. The same principle applies under ACP’s Article 93 presumption—once temporal acquisition during marriage is shown, the property is presumed community unless the spouse claiming exclusion proves it falls under Article 92. The Court in Dela Peña also clarified that registration of the title in the wife’s name “married to” merely describes civil status and does not convert the property into conjugal.

In Ayala Investment and Security Bank, the Court addressed the counterpart concept of what obligations chargeable to the conjugal partnership are included: debts and obligations contracted for the benefit of the family are chargeable to the conjugal partnership under Article 121. A surety agreement, without proof of benefit, is not included, thereby protecting the conjugal mass.

Doctrinal Synthesis

For ACP, the community mass is comprehensive; exclusions are strictly limited to gratuitous acquisitions, personal effects (not jewelry), and property from a former marriage with legitimate descendants. For CPG, property acquired for value during marriage is conjugal, while separate property remains distinct. The burden of proof shifts depending on the regime and the party asserting a classification. Practitioners should gather evidence of acquisition dates, sources of funds, and donor’s/testator’s intent.

Recent Developments

No recent rulings from 2024-2026 on the precise scope of exclusions were identified. The 2020 case G.R. No. 230934 reaffirms that property acquired before a subsequent marriage by a spouse with legitimate descendants by a former marriage is excluded from absolute community to protect those descendants’ interests.

Analysis

When inventorying property, first identify the applicable regime. For ACP, the starting point is that everything is community unless squarely within the three exclusions. For CPG, separate the “brought-in” and gratuitous property from the fruits and acquisitions during marriage. Documentary evidence—titles, deeds of donation, receipts—is essential to overcome presumptions.

Issue 4: How do marriage settlements (prenuptial agreements) work, including formalities, validity, and modification?

Applicable Laws & Issuances

The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) dedicates Articles 74 to 81 to marriage settlements:

• Article 74: Property relations are governed first by marriage settlements.
• Article 75: The future spouses may agree on absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. Absent a settlement, absolute community governs.
• Article 76: “In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136.”
• Article 77: The marriage settlement must be in writing, signed by the parties, and registered in the local civil registry and in the Registry of Property to bind third persons.
• Article 78: A minor may execute a marriage settlement with the consent of the persons required by law for the marriage license.
• Article 81: Stipulations that depend on the marriage are void if the marriage does not take place.

Additionally, Articles 134 to 136 provide for judicial separation of property during the marriage on grounds such as abandonment, separation in fact for at least one year, abuse of power of administration, or that the spouse of the absentee has been missing for a certain period.

Case Law Analysis

Efren Pana v. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr. is the primary authority on the immutability of the property regime after marriage. The Court unequivocally declared: “the conjugal partnership of gains that governed the marriage… cannot be modified except before the celebration of that marriage.” No subsequent agreement between spouses can alter the regime; only a judicial decree of separation of property under the limited statutory grounds can effect a change. The case underscores the mandatory pre-marriage character of marriage settlements.

David A. Noveras v. Leticia T. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289 (2014) illustrates the application of judicial separation of absolute community property under Article 135(6) (separation in fact for over one year) following a foreign divorce. While the divorce recognition failed for lack of authentication, the Court granted separation of property based on the spouses’ de facto separation, showing that the post-marriage modification route exists only through the judicial mechanism.

The older case In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Jose Bermas, Sr. (1965) held that under the Civil Code, voluntary dissolution of conjugal partnership required judicial approval and notification of all affected parties, including children from previous marriages. The principle persists that any post-marriage alteration of property relations must undergo judicial scrutiny to protect third-party rights.

Doctrinal Synthesis

A valid marriage settlement must be executed before the marriage, in writing, and registered. It may adopt any of the named regimes or a custom regime not contrary to law, morals, or public policy. Post-marriage modification is prohibited as a general rule, subject to the narrow exceptions of judicial separation of property under Articles 134-136 and the provisions allowing modification of the settlement itself before marriage takes place. Failure to register the settlement means it has no effect against third persons, though it remains valid between the spouses.

Recent Developments

No recent rulings or legislative changes (2024-present) were identified through web research on this specific issue. The rule remains that marriage settlements are essentially irrevocable after the wedding.

Analysis

For a client contemplating marriage, the window to choose a property regime is exclusively before the ceremony. The agreement must be drafted as a public instrument and registered with both the Civil Registrar and the Registry of Deeds (for real property) to be fully effective. If clients are already married and wish to alter their regime—for instance, to protect one spouse’s assets from business debts—they must petition for judicial separation of property and prove one of the statutory grounds. The process is judicial and not discretionary. For pre-Family Code marriages, the regime is fixed; practitioners must not assume an ACP classification.

Section III — Action Plan & Evidence Guide

Recommended Strategy: Determine the property regime by confirming the date of marriage and the existence of a registered marriage settlement. This determination is the threshold for all subsequent advice on property rights, dispositions, and liability. Once the regime is identified, classify each property by tracing its acquisition date and source, then advise on the need for spousal consent in any transaction. If a transaction was made without consent, assess whether the Family Code or Civil Code rules apply based on the transaction date to determine if it is void or voidable. For prenuptial planning, ensure the agreement is executed as a public instrument and registered before the wedding.

Action Steps:

1. Verify marriage date and settlement — Obtain a certified true copy of the marriage certificate from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and check for any annotation of a marriage settlement. For properties, request from the local civil registry a copy of any registered marriage settlement. Confirm whether the marriage was celebrated before or after 3 August 1988.

2. Gather title documents and acquisition evidence — For real property, secure certified true copies of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) or Condominium Certificates of Title (CCT) from the Registry of Deeds. Note the date of registration and any annotations. Obtain deeds of sale, donation, or extrajudicial settlement for each property to establish when and how it was acquired.

3. Prepare a property inventory with classification — List all properties, their acquisition dates, sources of funds, and whether acquired by gratuitous or onerous title. Apply the inclusion/exclusion rules of the applicable regime to classify each as community/conjugal or exclusive.

4. Assess consent requirements for any pending or past transaction — For any sale, mortgage, or transfer, verify that the consent of both spouses was obtained in writing. If not, evaluate the date of the transaction to determine if the Family Code (void) or Civil Code (voidable) governs, and advise on remedies such as annulment or declaration of nullity.

5. For prospective marriages, draft and register the marriage settlement — Prepare a notarized marriage settlement selecting the desired regime. Register it with the Local Civil Registrar of the place where the marriage will be celebrated and, if real properties are involved, with the Registry of Deeds of the province or city where the properties are located. This must be done before the marriage ceremony.

Evidence Checklist:

• Certified true copy of Marriage Certificate (PSA) — proves date of marriage, vital for determining default regime or existence of settlement
• Certified true copy of Marriage Settlement, if any (Local Civil Registrar) — proves chosen regime; must be registered to bind third parties
• Transfer Certificates of Title / Condominium Certificates of Title (Registry of Deeds) — shows registered owner, date of registration, and any encumbrances or annotations
• Deeds of Absolute Sale, Deeds of Donation, Extrajudicial Settlements — establish date and mode of acquisition (onerous vs. gratuitous)
• Tax declarations and receipts — corroborate possession and improvements, helpful in proving acquisition timeline
• Bank records, loan documents — can show source of funds, benefiting party, and whether obligations redounded to the family
• Spouse’s written consent or court authorization, if any — essential to prove valid encumbrance or disposition of community/conjugal property
• Judicial decree of separation of property or nullity, if applicable — modifies regime during marriage or determines liquidation rules

⚠️ This is AI-generated legal research for reference only. It does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Philippine attorney before making important legal decisions.

References

Legislation & Regulatory Issuances

• Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209)

Case Law

• ANTONIO A. S. VALDES v. RTC, G.R. No. 122749 (31 July 1996)
• AYALA INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. CA, G.R. No. 118305 (12 February 1998)
• ANTONIA R. DELA PEÑA v. AVILA, G.R. No. 187490 (8 February 2012)
• SECURITY BANK AND TRUST CO. v. MAR TIERRA CORP., G.R. No. 143382 (29 November 2006)
• EFREN PANA v. HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE, SR., G.R. No. 164201 (10 December 2012)
• DAVID A. NOVERAS v. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, G.R. No. 188289 (20 August 2014)
• BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. PESONS, G.R. No. 196213 (27 March 2017)
• IN THE MATTER OF THE VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF JOSE BERMAS, SR., G.R. No. L-20379 (22 June 1965)
• G.R. No. 230934 (2 December 2020) — Heirs of the Late Apolinario Caburnay v. Heirs of Teodulo Sison
• Belinda Alexander v. Sps. Jorge and Hilaria Escalona, G.R. No. 246445 (2 March 2021)