Digest of the main decision, dissenting and concurring opinions regarding Marcos' interment at the LNMB
Case digest of De Ocampo vs. Gatchalian under Negotiable Instruments LawFull description
Case DigestFull description
dfdsafdafadfsafd
not mine. tyFull description
[ GR No. L-6120, Jun 30, 1953 ] CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS v. FELICISIMO OCAMPOFull description
Full description
Descripción completa
fytyDescripción completa
Visión Instantanea - MI Raul OcampoFull description
desarrolla vision tacticaFull description
Obra completa, argentina, siglo XX, Silvina OcampoDescripción completa
Descripción: desarrolla vision tactica
Descripción: Epístola que recibían los recién casados en México. Se trata de un documento polémico, el cual no ha sido bien visto por el movimiento feminista. Sin embargo son muchos los conceptos que expresa y ...
Crimpro
Descripción: vision tatica
Livro de Arzeno e Ocampo Psicodiagnóstico
Livro de Arzeno e Ocampo PsicodiagnósticoFull description
PartituraDescripción completa
En este libro el académico colombiano Jose Fernando ocampo nos ofrece una visión de las primeras y turbulentas décadas del siglo XX en Colombia, años cuyas repercusiones aún podemos observar…Descripción completa
vision taticaFull description
454twertFull description
Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations
G.R. No. 198908
August 3, 2015
VIRGINIA OCAMPO - versus - DEOGRACIO OCAMPO Facts On January 22, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision declaring the marriage between Virginia and Deogracio Ocampo as null and void from the beginning under rticle 3! of the "amily #ode $on the ground of psychological incapacity%&
On 'arch 31, 1999, the trial court directed the parties to submit a pro(ect of partition of their invent inventori oried ed proper propertie ties& s& )aving )aving failed failed to agree agree on a pro(ec pro(ectt of parti partitio tion n of their their con(uga con(ugall properties, hearing ensued and the trial court rendered the assailed Order stating that the properties declared by the parties belong to each one of them on a *+*+ sharing& -hether respondent should be deprived deprived of his share in the con(ugal partnership partnership of gains Issu! -hether by reason of bad faith and psychological perversity& Ru"#$g .he #ourt held that in a void marriage, as in those declared void under rticle 3! of the "amily #ode, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by rticle 1/0 or rticle 1/ of the "amily #ode& rticle 1/0 of the "amily #ode applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage but without the benefit of marriage or whose marriage is nonetheless void, as in this case& rticle 1/0 states that their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in eual shares and the property acuired by both of them through their wor or industry shall be governed by the rules on #OO-4567)8& In the absence abs ence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be b e owned by them them in equal shares. shares. For purposes purposes of Article Article 1!, a party party who did not particip participate ate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former"s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
rticle 11! e:pressly provides that the presumption remains even if the property is ;registered in the name of one or both of the spouses&; 7ince as a rule, even a plain housewife who stays all the time in the house and taes claim that the seed money was provided by her mother and had it not been for that the properties could not have been acuired& .he #ourt is not prone to believe because of insufficient evidence to prove such contention but petitioner>s selfserving allegations& Of course, attempts to establish respondent as an irresponsible and unfaithful husband, as well as family man were made but the testimonies adduced failed to fully convince the #ourt that respondent should be punished by depriving him of his share of the con(ugal property because of his indiscretion&