Title
Noveras vs. Noveras
Case
G.R. No. 188289
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2014
Married in 1988, David and Leticia acquired properties in the Philippines and USA. After divorce in 2005, Leticia sought judicial separation of conjugal property. Philippine court divided properties equally, awarded children presumptive legitimes, and denied jurisdiction over US assets.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188289)

Properties and Financial Background

Philippine assets: Sampaloc house and lot (redeemed at ₱1.5 M; sold under SPA for ₱2.2 M), agricultural lands in Aurora, coconut plantation
US assets: Daly City house and lot (mortgaged at US$285,000), furniture, jewelry, vehicle, Bank of America accounts, life insurance policy (US$100,000), retirement/pension funds

Abandonment and Joint Affidavit

2001: David returns to the Philippines
September 2003: Alleged abandonment; cohabitation with Estrellita Martinez
December 3, 2003: Joint Affidavit provides that (1) Leticia collects ₱1.1 M sale proceeds; (2) David refunds ₱750,000 to Leticia; (3) David renounces all rights in Philippine conjugal properties

Divorce and Custody in California

June 24, 2005: Superior Court of California grants Leticia a divorce decree; awards her custody of the children and ownership of all US properties

Petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property

August 8, 2005: Leticia files in RTC Baler, Aurora, seeking administration of Philippine conjugal assets, injunction against alienation, forfeiture in favor of children, reimbursement of half the redemption and sale proceeds, and litigation expenses

RTC’s Simplified Issues

  1. Abandonment and infidelity as grounds for forfeiture
  2. Jurisdiction over US properties
  3. Effect of the Joint Affidavit on David’s property rights
  4. Reimbursement claims on Sampaloc sale and redemption
  5. Distribution of absolute community property
  6. Legitime shares and support of the children
  7. Chargeability of attorneys’ fees to the conjugal partnership

RTC Ruling (December 8, 2006)

– Declared dissolution of the absolute community of property
– Awarded Philippine assets to David; US assets to Leticia per California divorce
– Presumptive legitimes: half of both spouses’ Philippine and US shares to the children; annotated on titles; income remitted annually
– David ordered to pay US$100 monthly allowance; Leticia to provide basic needs
– From the ₱410,000 unpaid Sampaloc balance: ₱405,000 to children (deposited in joint account), ₱5,000 to David
– Each party bears own attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses

Court of Appeals Ruling (May 9, 2008)

– Modified equal division of Philippine community assets between spouses
– Each spouse to pay the children ₱520,000 as presumptive legitimes from Sampaloc proceeds
– Ordered David to pay Leticia ₱1,040,000 (half of net proceeds from Sampaloc sale)
– Rest of RTC decision affirmed

Supreme Court Analysis

Recognition of California Divorce
– Foreign judgment and law must be proven under Rules 132(Sections 24–25) and 39(Section 48[b]); decree lacked required authentication and evidence of applicable California law
– No judicial notice of foreign divorce; parties remain married in the Philippines

Ground for Judicial Separation
– Abandonment not established; but separation in fact exceeded one year and reconciliation was improbable (Family Code, Art. 135[6])
– Judicial separation dissolves the absolute community (Family Code, Art. 99[4]) and triggers liquidation (Family Code, Art. 102)

Jurisdiction over Properties
– Philippine courts la







...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.