Legal Writing Final Project

Ariane Kae A. Espina 1L

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 1, PASIG CITY

KARENINA B. LAGO Plaintiff-Respondent CIVIL CASE NO. L-143111 -versusFor: Liquidation of properties

DARIUS J. SANTOS Defendant-Petitioner x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM COME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Regional Trial Court most respectfully submits this MEMORANDUM and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This refers to an action for dissolution and liquidation of properties jointly owned by the parties.

THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff-Respondent Darius J. Santos is of legal age, residing at 1864 J. Vargas Street Quezon City, where she may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Court 2. Defendant-Petitioner Karenina B. Lago is of legal age, residing at 1234 Mapayapa Street Sampaloc, Manila where she may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Court

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Darius J. Santos is an endocrinologist-internist by profession while Karenina B. Lago is an accountant. Darius is previously married to Carol Exconde and Milette Torres which he had three and two kids respectively. However, the parties aforementioned had three children. During their relationship, Darius acquired several properties such as lot located in Alabang, BMW car which later had been sold to buy a Toyota Innova, Motorcycle and house appliances in his name. Nevertheless, Karenina had her Ford Escape registered under her name through a car loan and owned 100 shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation. She later on established an accounting firm. Darius is controlling, dominant, verbally abusive and has temper problem. He even pointed an armalite to Karenina several times. Because of this, the parties wish to liquidate the co-owned properties in order to distribute in their three children.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether the marriage between Darius and Carol exists 2. Whether or not the properties of Darius and Karenina may be liquidated so as to distribute to their three children

3. Whether Karenina can claim damages against Darius with the physical and psychological violence inflicted by the latter in accordance with Republic Act 9262 also known as the AntiViolence against Women and Children

ARGUMENTS A. The annulment between Darius and Carol has not been granted yet such that the second marriage to Milette might be considered bigamous. B. Since there is no marriage between Darius and Karenina, salaries and properties established shall be separately owned by the parties. C. Darius should be held liable for consequential damages against Karenina for the physical and verbal abuse inflicted.

DISCUSSIONS The parties herein are not legally married. Their relationship is considered as common law and that out of wed-lock three children are born. A number of properties were bought by Darius such as a lot, cars and house appliances all registered in his name. On the other hand, Karenina acquired a car registered under her name. She was able to establish an accounting firm and owns 100 shares of stock from San Miguel Corporation. During the relationship, Karenina experienced numerous physical and verbal violence which the children also witnessed. Darius is controlling, dominant and has temper problem. As a result, they can no longer live together as husband and wife. Karenina wants to liquidate the properties and be distributed in their children. In the case of Gonzales vs. Gonzales it provides, When a man and a woman live together under a void marriage, or when a man and a woman, capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, their property relations

shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired by both parties during their union are presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts and will be owned by them in equal shares. A party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property is deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition of such property if the formers efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Darius annulment in his first marriage with Carol is still pending. Though Carol filed Divorce, it is not recognized here in Philippines. As a result, his subsequent marriage to Milette is bigamous. However, the marriage of Darius and Milette is annulled due to absence of marriage license. Pursuant to Article 148, it states, 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 both faith. It is indubitable that salaries and wages of the parties are separately owned by them. Since Darius is still married, the salary goes to conjugal partnership of gains. This is dependent to that status and stage of the annulment proceeding between him and Carol. Nonetheless, property exclusively acquired belongs to such party. Properties acquired by both through their work or industry are owned in proportion to their respective contributions. There is no presumption of joint acquisition. Actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common proportion. However, their contributions are presumed equal, in the absence of proof to the contrary. Proof of actual contribution is necessary in the instant case.

With regard to the physical and verbal abuse inflicted based on Republic Act 9262 also known as Anti-Violence against Women and Children, if the suspect is found guilty by the courts, he may be imprisoned and will be obliged to pay P100,000 to P300,000 in damages. The length of imprisonment depends on the gravity of the crime.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable Regional Trial Court that Plaintiff-Respondents prayer for liquidation of respective properties of the parties and a damage of Php 250,000 be granted. Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for. Respectfully submitted. Pasig City for Manila. Philippines. April 15, 2013

Atty. Ariane Kae Espina

Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005 PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011Roll of Attorney No. 2016-001113 MCLE Compliance No. III 000899