Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    ERLINDA A. AGAPAY, Petitioner, vs. Carlina (Cornelia) V. Palang and Herminia P. Dela Cruz, Respondents. G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 Facts

    Uploaded by

    denver41
    1) Miguel Palang was married to respondent Carlina but then contracted a bigamous marriage with petitioner Erlinda Agapay when she was 19 years old. During their cohabitation, Miguel and Erlinda acquired a parcel of land. 2) The issue is whether Erlinda can be considered a co-owner of the land since she did not prove contributing to its acquisition, having been only 20 years old at the time. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs properties in bigamous marriages, Erlinda is not a co-owner as she failed to prove contributing to the purchase of the land. The land therefore belongs to Miguel

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ERLINDA A. AGAPAY, Petitioner, vs. Carlina (Cornelia) V. Palang and Herminia P. Dela Cruz, Respondents. G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 Facts

    Uploaded by

    denver41
    11 views1 page
    1) Miguel Palang was married to respondent Carlina but then contracted a bigamous marriage with petitioner Erlinda Agapay when she was 19 years old. During their cohabitation, Miguel and Erlinda acquired a parcel of land. 2) The issue is whether Erlinda can be considered a co-owner of the land since she did not prove contributing to its acquisition, having been only 20 years old at the time. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs properties in bigamous marriages, Erlinda is not a co-owner as she failed to prove contributing to the purchase of the land. The land therefore belongs to Miguel

    Original Description:

    L

    Original Title

    Agapay v. Palang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Miguel Palang was married to respondent Carlina but then contracted a bigamous marriage with petitioner Erlinda Agapay when she was 19 years old. During their cohabitation, Miguel and Erlinda acquired a parcel of land. 2) The issue is whether Erlinda can be considered a co-owner of the land since she did not prove contributing to its acquisition, having been only 20 years old at the time. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs properties in bigamous marriages, Erlinda is not a co-owner as she failed to prove contributing to the purchase of the land. The land therefore belongs to Miguel

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views1 page

    ERLINDA A. AGAPAY, Petitioner, vs. Carlina (Cornelia) V. Palang and Herminia P. Dela Cruz, Respondents. G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 Facts

    Uploaded by

    denver41
    1) Miguel Palang was married to respondent Carlina but then contracted a bigamous marriage with petitioner Erlinda Agapay when she was 19 years old. During their cohabitation, Miguel and Erlinda acquired a parcel of land. 2) The issue is whether Erlinda can be considered a co-owner of the land since she did not prove contributing to its acquisition, having been only 20 years old at the time. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs properties in bigamous marriages, Erlinda is not a co-owner as she failed to prove contributing to the purchase of the land. The land therefore belongs to Miguel

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ERLINDA A.

    AGAPAY, petitioner,
    vs.
    CARLINA (CORNELIA) V. PALANG and HERMINIA P. DELA CRUZ,
    respondents.
    G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997
    Facts:
    Miguel Palang and respondent Carlina were married. Subsequently, Miguel
    contracted a marriage with petitioner, a nineteen year old, and during their
    cohabitation they acquired a parcel of land. Miguel died.
    Issue:
    Can petitioner be considered a co-owner since there is no showing of her
    contribution to the acquisition of the same since she was only 20 years old then?
    Held:
    No. The Supreme Court ruled that, in a bigamous marriage, Article 148 of the
    Family Code applies especially when it was never shown that one of the spouses
    actually contributed to the co-ownership. The property cannot be considered
    property governed by the law on co-ownership since Erlinda failed to prove that she
    contributed money to the purchase price of the rice land. It should therefore belong
    to the conjugal partnership of Miguel and Carlina. Under Art. 148, Family Code, 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.

    You might also like