Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aussiekangaroo

Ex Demanding I give her 250,000PHP, Does she really have a case?

Recommended Posts

aussiekangaroo

I was with my ex Filipina for a about 4 and a half years and during that time I always gave her an allowance, Condo to stay, Top end smart phones and the list goes on, Now that we have separated back in January and says that I have a new girlfriend that somehow she can see on facebook even tho she was blocked from it says that I must pay her 250,000PHP as we were together for 4 years and she helped me with renting the condo's.

 

I originally offered to give her around 130,000 as goodwill gesture not to be leaving her on the street and the last few months I have given her money and helped pay for her boarding house then she said her lawyer said I need to give her 250,000, I told her to send me the demand letter from her lawyer yesterday but is that somehow legal that she can claim against me? She has already found a job since we broke up.

 

Late last year I had a guy message me from America in my facebook saying that they had met several times tho nothing ever happened he had made his intentions quite clear to get married with her  and she had never said anything about having a boyfriend already. There has been several lies from this girl dating back to day one when she said that she was a virgin then after a few months whilst still just dating admitted she was not a virgin, We had previously had a marriage license prepared but she just did not turn up on the day due to some issues with her step father not wanting it to go ahead which later I found out was a family member but sleeping with her mother. She then insisted that she would come and stay with me a few days after that which she did and I made her go to see a lawyer and prepare a statement saying she does on her own free will well lucky I did because in the middle of the night the step father turned up with police I gave a copy of the letter to the police then they left. Should have left her years ago but I was in love and tried my best to make her happy and this is what I get in return what a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

 

COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE (LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS) IN THE PHILIPPINES

By: Atty.Fred | November 4, 2006 in Family Law

73 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

 

 
 
 

Money is [one of] the root of all kinds of relationship problems, says an article at the Family Relationships site. In my modest years of law practice, I can say that among the most bitter confrontations (in and out of court) relate to property/money/inheritance issues between members of the family.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, property matters between the husband and wife are set forth in relative detail, e.g., the forms and requisites of a marriage settlement or ante-nuptial agreement, donations by reason of marriage, the “default” property regime of absolute community of property (vis-a-vis separation of property, and conjugal partnership of gains), support for the spouse and the children, and the effects of legal separation and annulment of marriage on the spouses’ properties. I’m still trying to decide if I should further discuss any of these topics (also, the rules on succession/inheritance are treated in other laws/issuances, and may be discussed separately in other entries).

For this entry, allow me to focus on something that appears to be increasingly common nowadays — the “live-in” relationship, also called “common-law marriage“. This is governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which reads:

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence 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 owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate 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.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts 
inter vivos
 of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.

The Family Code (Art. 147) recognizes, and expressly governs the property relations in, the relationship where a man and a woman live exclusively with each other just like a husband and wife, but without the benefit of marriage (or when the marriage is void). It is required, however, that both must be capacitated, or has no legal impediment, to marry each other (for instance, couples under a “live-in” relationship will not be covered under this provision if one or both has a prior existing marriage). In this situation, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. As to the homemaker, or the one who cared for and maintained the family household, he/she is still considered to have jointly contributed to the acquisition of a property, even if he/she did not directly participate in the property’s acquisition.

How about if one or both partners are not capacitated to marry, as when one (or both) has an existing or prior marriage which has not been annulled/declared void? This is covered under Art. 148 of the Family Code, which reads:

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.

In other words, under Art. 148, only the properties acquired through their ACTUAL JOINT contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common (in proportion to their actual contributions). There is no presumption that properties were acquired through the partners’ joint effort. Please also note that if one has a prior marriage, his/her share shall be forfeited in favor of that previous marriage (as an aside, the children under the second relationship shall be considered as illegitimate).

So, as previously stated in this Forum, put your (first) house in order first. No need to rush; love is patient. It can wait. (Citations and more discussions at Wiki.LawCenter.ph)

Related Posts:
Edited by Davaoeno
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AussieLex

Give her nothing as she is nothing but a greedy bitch ... although she may have been your common law wife if she was not working at any time during your relationship and if she brought nominee into the relationship then that is enough proof that you were her only means of support during that time and now you really do owe her nothing... I don't think there was any community property to speak of seeing you were renting... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts,

 

I would assume that there are no real assets to split, as he said they rented. She is asking for money for living with him which is tantamount to an admission to prostitution. She is not entitled to payment for her time.

Edited by RogerDuMond
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno
I would assume that there are no real assets to split

 

I assumed that since he was in the business of renting out condos, and that he says he gave her a condo to stay in,  that he owned them. 

 

 

 

btw- if you block someone from seeing your facebook account all they have to do is to use someone elses account to look at it .

Edited by Davaoeno
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

I would assume that there are no real assets to split, as he said they rented. She is asking for money for living with him which is tantamount to an admission to prostitution. She is not entitled to payment for her time.

 

The condo's were one one's that I own and am renting out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

I assumed that since he was in the business of renting out condos, and that he says he gave her a condo to stay in,  that he owned them. 

 

I guess we need clarification from the OP, did they rent to live in or were they owned and rented out and if owned was it prior them being together or after the start of their cohabitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

 

 

She is asking for money for living with him which is tantamount to an admission to prostitution.

 

if that were the test that courts used then all wives would be judged to be prostitutes.  Roger - you usually give better advice ! lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

I guess we need clarification from the OP, did they rent to live in or were they owned and rented out and if owned was it prior them being together or after the start of their cohabitation.

 

It was purchased by sending her reservation fees by bank transfer, We only stayed together for a few months of each year at most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

 

 

then all wives would be judged to be prostitutes.

 

She isn't a wife.

 

 

The condo's were one one's that I own and am renting out.

 

 

Did you own them prior to getting together and if not can you prove that all the money that went into them came from you?


It was purchased by sending her reservation fees by bank transfer, We only stayed together for a few months of each year at most.

 

 

Get a lawyer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

 

 

It was purchased by sending her reservation fees

 

so obviously they aquired the properties during the time that they cohabited.  

 

You offered 130,000. All she is asking is 250,000.  If it were me i couldnt pay her and get her to sign a release quickly enough !!

 

 

And all you folk telling him to tell her to go piss up a rope i think are doing him a disservice !!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billy

I was with my ex Filipina for a about 4 and a half years and during that time I always gave her an allowance, Condo to stay, Top end smart phones and the list goes on, Now that we have separated back in January and says that I have a new girlfriend that somehow she can see on facebook even tho she was blocked from it says that I must pay her 250,000PHP as we were together for 4 years and she helped me with renting the condo's.

 

I originally offered to give her around 130,000 as goodwill gesture not to be leaving her on the street and the last few months I have given her money and helped pay for her boarding house then she said her lawyer said I need to give her 250,000, I told her to send me the demand letter from her lawyer yesterday but is that somehow legal that she can claim against me? She has already found a job since we broke up.

 

Late last year I had a guy message me from America in my facebook saying that they had met several times tho nothing ever happened he had made his intentions quite clear to get married with her  and she had never said anything about having a boyfriend already. There has been several lies from this girl dating back to day one when she said that she was a virgin then after a few months whilst still just dating admitted she was not a virgin, We had previously had a marriage license prepared but she just did not turn up on the day due to some issues with her step father not wanting it to go ahead which later I found out was a family member but sleeping with her mother. She then insisted that she would come and stay with me a few days after that which she did and I made her go to see a lawyer and prepare a statement saying she does on her own free will well lucky I did because in the middle of the night the step father turned up with police I gave a copy of the letter to the police then they left. Should have left her years ago but I was in love and tried my best to make her happy and this is what I get in return what a joke.

 

sounds like you know  how to pick them. just ignore her change all your numbers. and put a period its the end

Give her nothing as she is nothing but a greedy bitch ... although she may have been your common law wife if she was not working at any time during your relationship and if she brought nominee into the relationship then that is enough proof that you were her only means of support during that time and now you really do owe her nothing... I don't think there was any community property to speak of seeing you were renting... 

 

 

 by the way common law is living together five years or longer.so its not common law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno
Did you own them prior to getting together and if not can you prove that all the money that went into them came from you?

 

let me repeat myself :

 

 Any property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. As to the homemaker, or the one who cared for and maintained the family household, he/she is still considered to have jointly contributed to the acquisition of a property, even if he/she did not directly participate in the property’s acquisition.

 

 

 

Let   me be clear here - I am not saying it is fair.  I am just pointing out what the law says.  Like it or not .

Edited by Davaoeno
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billy

so obviously they aquired the properties during the time that they cohabited.  

 

You offered 130,000. All she is asking is 250,000.  If it were me i couldnt pay her and get her to sign a release quickly enough !!

 

 

And all you folk telling him to tell her to go piss up a rope i think are doing him a disservice !!

 

 

don't give her anything period end... shut your fb acct off change numbers it's over.... 

 

listen to me she knows your p*ssy whipped get on with your life it's OVER

Edited by billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno
listen to me she knows your p*ssy whipped get on with your life it's OVER

 

 

tell him that again after she hires a good atty and comes after him for several million.   The guy is looking for advice , not for some half assed legal expert to tell him he is p*ssy whipped and all he has to do to fix his problems is to close his fb account and change his phone number !!

 

 

 

First I would try to negotiate the amount lower- say 175,000 cash today for a quick settlement 

Edited by Davaoeno
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadow

I was with my ex Filipina for a about 4 and a half years and during that time I always gave her an allowance, Condo to stay, Top end smart phones and the list goes on,

 

And therein lies the root of the problem, you tried to buy her. Well, you got her.

 

As I understand it, anything you owned before the conjugal relationship is yours to keep. Anything purchased later in the relationship, with conjugal funds, is conjugal property. You can probably fight it, and maybe win if you can prove it was 100% your money which bought the property. Or, you can find yourself on the wrong end of a major issue. And let us not take lightly all she has to do is claim some sort of abuse, and we will be seeing you in a few years in a video such as this one;

 

http://www.livingincebuforums.com/topic/94724-american-wrongfully-imprisoned-in-the-philippines-for-5-years/#entry1245359

 

For many of us, 5 years waiting in a Philippine prison for a day in court, would be a death sentence. It certainly would be for me, and most people here are older than I.

 

Offer her the P130,000 that you already wrote off on a take it or leave it basis, and hope she takes it and walks away. Chalk it up to experience, and next time, make your relationship decisions accordingly.

 

Another option, get on the plane and don't come back for years.

 

YMMV

 

Good luck.

Edited by shadow
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billy

tell him that again after she hires a good atty and comes after him for several million.   The guy is looking for advice , not for some half assed legal expert to tell him he is p*ssy whipped and all he has to do to fix his problems is to close his fb account and change his phone number !!

 

 

 

First I would try to negotiate the amount lower- say 175,000 cash today for a quick settlement

 

Thats where we disagree there not common law husband and wife unless they live together for five years and full time. The poster said it was part time for four years. Since your so strong that he pays you pay for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

well Billy the law seems to disagree with you .  Please advise me where it says that they have to live together for 5 years ??

 

  1.  

    Atty Fred - Ms.A, there’s no exact time provided, bt the phrase “live exclusively with each other” will give yoU an idea. Good luck.

    http://jlp-law.com/blog/common-law-marriage-live-in-relationships-in-philippines/   comments at bottom of the page

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadow

Thats where we disagree there not common law husband and wife unless they live together for five years and full time. The poster said it was part time for four years. Since your so strong that he pays you pay for him.

Can you show me where the law states anything about living together for 5 years for conjugal property laws to be in effect? I will make it easier for you, here is what the Family code says, and it says nothing about 5 years;

 

Chapter 7. Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence 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 owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate 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.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,

 

I still believe that being with her for a few months on and off does not constitute living with her "exclusively" and therefor they did not have a common law marriage, but my prior comment still stands. Get an attorney.

Edited by RogerDuMond
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

Rule on equal co-ownership


This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage.<ref>Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996</ref>


Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couple's separate property are not included in the co-ownership.<ref>Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996</ref>


As to the homemaker, or the one who cared for and maintained the family household, he/she is still considered to have jointly contributed to the acquisition of a property, even if he/she did not directly participate in the property’s acquisition. Article 147 explicitly provides that a party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's "efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household."<ref>Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996</ref>


Wages and salaries earned by either party during the cohabitation shall be owned by the parties in equal shares and will be divided equally between them, even if only one party earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto.<ref>Cariño vs. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001, citing Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, p. 230 (1995)</ref> Even if the disputed "death benefits" were earned by a government employee, Article 147 creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, entitling the other party to share one-half thereof. As there is no allegation of bad faith in the present case, both parties of the first marriage are presumed to be in good faith.<ref>Cariño vs. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001</ref>


Edited by Davaoeno
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

The thing I am confused with is that we only ever spent a few months together each year at most, So we did not “live exclusively with each other” for any great amount of time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

 

 

Can you show me where the law states anything about living together for 5 years for conjugal property laws to be in effect? I will make it easier for you, here is what the Family code says, and it says nothing about 5 years;

 

"No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other."

 

http://famli.blogspot.com/2010/10/quickie-marriages-under-article-34-of.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadow

The thing I am confused with is that we only ever spent a few months together each year at most, So we did not “live exclusively with each other” for any great amount of time.

BUT, she maintained the home?

"No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other."

 

http://famli.blogspot.com/2010/10/quickie-marriages-under-article-34-of.html

No license to marry is needed, however, does it apply in a case such as this?

 

Would you want to find out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Sailfish Bay Fishing Charters

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..