Scribd
Upload
188 views1 page

Noveras Vs Noveras

1) David and Leticia, former Filipino citizens now Americans, acquired properties in the Philippines and USA during their marriage. Leticia obtained a divorce decree in California that awarded her the US properties. She then filed for judicial separation of properties in the Philippines. 2) The trial court held that liquidation was proper, not judicial separation, since the marriage was dissolved by divorce. It awarded Philippine properties to David and US properties to Leticia. 3) The Court of Appeals modified this, dividing the net Philippine properties equally between David and Leticia with half of Leticia's share going to their children. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that judicial separation was proper since David and Leticia had been separated

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
188 views1 page

Noveras Vs Noveras

1) David and Leticia, former Filipino citizens now Americans, acquired properties in the Philippines and USA during their marriage. Leticia obtained a divorce decree in California that awarded her the US properties. She then filed for judicial separation of properties in the Philippines. 2) The trial court held that liquidation was proper, not judicial separation, since the marriage was dissolved by divorce. It awarded Philippine properties to David and US properties to Leticia. 3) The Court of Appeals modified this, dividing the net Philippine properties equally between David and Leticia with half of Leticia's share going to their children. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that judicial separation was proper since David and Leticia had been separated

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Noveras vs Noveras forfeited in favour of her children; 4) David to remit

GR 188289 half of the purchase price as share of Leticia from the


sale of the Sampaloc property; and 5) the payment of
FACTS: Former Filipino citizens now Americans David P50,000.00 and P100,000.00 litigation expenses.
and Leticia were married on December 3, 1988 in
Quezon City. They acquired properties in the ISSUE: WON the petition for judicial separation of
Philippines and the USA. Leticia subsequently absolute community of property should be granted.
obtained a decree of divorce from a California Court
wherein it awarded to Leticia all the properties in the RULING
USA. She later filed a petition for judicial separation
of conjugal properties with respect to their properties The RTC erred in recognizing the divorce decree
in the Philippines. The trial court held that it is without having complied with Rule 132 Sections 24
liquidation pursuant to Article 102 of the Family Code and 25, in relation to Rule 39 Section 48 (b) of the
not judicial separation because the spouses’ marriage Rules of Court. It also erred in proceeding directly to
had already been dissolved thru divorce. But liquidation because absent a valid recognition of the
inasmuch as there is no proof as to their property divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still
regime then based on the doctrine of processual legally married in the Philippines in consonance with
presumption, the property relations between the the doctrine of processual presumption.
spouses is that of absolute community of property. It
awarded all the properties located in the Philippines Leticia anchored her petition for judicial separation of
to David while the properties in the USA went to property on pars. 4 and 6 of Article 135, Family Code
Leticia with the directive that 1⁄2 of the properties but the trial court correctly held that there was no
awarded to each spouse shall be given to their abandonment as it was proven that Leticia knew that
children as their presumptive legitimes. The CA David has returned to and stayed in his hometown
modified the RTC ruling. It held that the net assets of while the latter would also visit Leticia and the
the community property in the Philippines are divided children in the US. However, records of this case are
equally between the spouses with half of Leticia’s replete with evidence that Leticia and David had
share to be given the children as their presumptive separated for more than a year and that
legitimes. Both were ordered to deliver P520,000.00 reconciliation is highly improbable. Having
to their 2 children as their presumptive legitimes. established that the spouses had actually separated
for at least 1 year, the petition for judicial separation
Petitioner’s Contention (David Noveras) of their properties should be granted. The grant
David insists that the Court of Appeals should have automatically dissolves the absolute community
recognized the California Judgment which awarded regime as stated in par. 4 of Article 99 of the Family
the Philippine properties to him because said Code. We agree with the appellate court that the
judgment was part of the pleading presented and Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the
offered in evidence before the trial court. David California properties of David and Leticia as Article 16
argues that allowing Leticia to share in the Philippine of the Civil Code clearly states that real property as
properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment in well as personal property is subject to the law of the
favour of Leticia considering that the latter was country where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall
already granted all US properties by the California only be limited to the Philippine properties.
court.

Respondent’s Contention (Leticia Noveras)


On 8 August 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial
Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of
Baler, Aurora. She relied on the 3 December 2003
Joint Affidavit and David’s failure to comply with his
obligation under the same. She prayed for: 1) the
power to administer all conjugal properties in the
Philippines; 2) David and his partner to cease and
desist from selling the subject conjugal properties; 3)
the declaration that all conjugal properties be

You might also like