JURISPRUDENCE:

1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEIRS OF CESAR JALANDONI, ET AL.,

(G.R. No. L-18384
September 20, 1965)
These three lots being conjugal property, one-half thereof belonging to the
deceased's spouse should still be deducted
2. Sorry, Atty. Gabs . This case does not involve taxation .
please see Jurisprudence number 2 for correction.
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., vs. DOROTEO T. MACUAN (G.R. No. L32280, March 24, 1930)
For the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold
that a married woman, under guardianship by reason of mental
derangement, is not entitled to have her half of the legal
conjugal partnership which still subsists, included in the
inventory of her property to be filed by her guardian, and
therefore, the husband, appointed guardian of her person and
estate, cannot be compelled to include in the inventory of the
same, said half of the conjugal property.
Having reached this conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to
decide the questions raised in the other assignments of error,
since the special guardian does not contend that the regular
guardian holds in his possession property belonging exclusively
to the ward, other than conjugal property.
2. THELMA M. ARANAS, v. TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO,
CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. MERCADO (G.R. No. 156407,
January 15, 2014)
Emigdio and Teresita having been married prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code in August 3, 1988, their property regime was the conjugal partnership of
gains.29 For purposes of the settlement of Emigdios estate, it was unavoidable
for Teresita to include his shares in the conjugal partnership of gains. The party
asserting that specific property acquired during that property regime did not
pertain to the conjugal partnership of gains carried the burden of proof, and that
party must prove the exclusive ownership by one of them by clear, categorical,
and convincing evidence
3. PAULINA SOCHAYSENG vs. ANDRES TRUJILLO, (G.R. No. L-8926, July
24, 1915)
The surviving spouse is obliged upon the death of the other to settle the
conjugal partnership. In this settlement a deduction should be made of the debts
incurred during the marriage, and what remains should be divided into two parts,
the part corresponding to the deceased spouse, together with his own property,
being that which should be submitted to the probate court in the special
proceedings for the settlement of the wife's estate. The decision of this court in
the case of Amancio vs. Pardo (13 Phil. Rep., 297) is based upon this principle. It
say: "When a conjugal partnership is dissolved by the death of the wife, the

surviving husband, and not the judicial administrator appointed in the

proceedings for the settlement of the estate, is entitled to the possession of the
property of the conjugal partnership until he has liquidated its affairs.

4. DAVID A. NOVERAS vs LETICIA T. NOVERAS (G.R. No. 188289, August

20, 2014)
Under the first paragraph of Article 888 of the Civil Code, "(t)he legitime of
legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half or the hereditary estate
of the father and of the mother."
5. ESTELA COSTUNA vs.L AUREANA DOMONDON THE HON. PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (G.R. No. 82753, December 19, 1989)
Notably, what was sold by Amadeo without the petitioner's consent was only
an undetermined one-half (1/2) share in the community properties. He left
intact that other undetermined 1/2 share which should belong to the
petitioner. And the reason for the sale was, as correctly found by the trial
court and Court of Appeals, for Amadeo's hospitalization and medication. It
was therefore Amadeo's understandable human spirit to live longer that
induced him to execute the deed of sale without the consent of the petitioner.