Liquidation of Property Regime under Civil Code, A104 Family Code
Art. 104. Whenever the liquidation of the community properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each community shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which community the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different communities in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)
1) If someone had been married more than once before the Family Code took effect [i.e., marriage is under the Civil Code], and the properties from these marriages are now being liquidated at the same time, the law requires that the assets, profits, and earnings from each marriage be clearly identified and separated based on evidence. This might include documents, testimonies, or other acceptable proof. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by Legal / J. Del Puerto, Accessed 5 May 2025)
2) If it’s unclear which marriage a particular asset belongs to — meaning the origin can’t be determined with certainty — then the property in question must be divided fairly among the marriages. The division will be proportional, based on:
(a) how much capital each marriage brought into the community, and
(b) how long each marriage lasted. (Ibid.)
Example 1: Hector, who had been widowed twice before 1988, had community properties from both past marriages. When he passed away, his heirs couldn’t tell whether a set of rental properties belonged to his first or second marriage. Since there was no solid evidence of origin, the court ordered that the properties be split between the two communities, giving a larger share to the second marriage because it lasted longer and involved more joint investments. (Ibid.)
Example 2: Marcela, whose previous two husbands both died before 1987, left behind various farmlands and savings. During liquidation, her children from both marriages disagreed over ownership of a large tract of land. Since it was impossible to trace which marriage the land came from, the court used the capital and duration formula, awarding 60% to the first community, which had a higher initial capital, and 40% to the second. (Ibid.)
Example 3: Lauro, who married three times before the Family Code [took effect], had mixed investments in shares and livestock businesses. At liquidation, several stocks couldn’t be traced to a specific marriage. The judge applied the rule of proportional division — since his second marriage was the shortest and contributed the least capital, it received the smallest portion, while the first and third communities received a larger share of the undetermined assets. (Ibid.)
