No. L-20379. June 22, 1965.

CONCEPCION, J.:

FACTS:

In 1962, an Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property was jointly executed by petitioners states that they are and have been legally married since December 24, 1932, that they have two children and during their marriage  have acquired twelve (12) parcels of land and two (2) buildings. Petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their conjugal partnership, and to the establishment of a separation of properties in the manner specified in the contract to prevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future, particularly because petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. has two (2) sets of children, one by a former marriage, and another by his present wife, the other petitioner. After publication and hearing, the court rendered the appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Consequently, said children by first marriage of petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. do not appear to have been notified personally of the filing of the petition and of the date of the hearing thereof, although the danger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote.

G.R. No. 82606. December 18, 1992.*

CRUZ, J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent, Jose Jo is legally married to the petitioner, who admits to having cohabited with three women and fathered fifteen children. The two agreed that Prima would temporarily leave their conjugal home in Dumaguete City to stay with her parents during the initial period of her pregnancy and for Jose to visit and support her. They never agreed to separate permanently. Prima went back to Dumaguete, but she was not accepted by her husband.

G.R. No. 137650. April 12, 2000.*

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

An action for ejectment was filed against petitioners by  Fernandez spouses who allegedly own the building apartment.

However, Guillerma Tumlos the petitioner contends that the respondents had no cause of action against her, since she is a co-owner of the subject premises and being named in the Contract to Sell as the wife of [Respondent] Mario Fernandez. She alleged that she cohabited with the petitioner-husband without the benefit of marriage, and that she bore him two (2) children.  The lower court decided that since she failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the subject apartment building, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership.

G.R. No. 122823. November 25, 1999.*

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

FACTS:

SEACOM is a corporation engaged in the business of selling and distributing agricultural machinery, products and equipment. SEACOM and JII entered into a dealership agreement as its exclusive dealer in the City and Province of Iloilo  and Capiz and to make the dealership agreement on a non-exclusive basis.