HB 2420, what can you say?

[tracernet_v2]

---

have you heard of the new HB that was passed by the congress??

its HB 2420, just read it here. to sum it up, "a spouse has no right over the property that his or her partner obtained prior to the wedding. He or she is only entitled to the assets that his or her partner acquired since the start of the marriage.

For example, if Juan inherited a 100-hectare land from his parents before getting married to Maria, Maria would have no right over Juan's landholding. If Maria bought a car or a house before getting married to Juan, Juan would have no right over these, too."

what do you think? is this good?

[Motownkid]

YES kaau! :mrgreen: maau ni to assure that dli wealth ang giapas sa imong spouse nimo..

[David Dennis]

This is similar to law in the USA (I am an American citizen).

The idea of shared (community) property in the first place is that the wife contributes to her husband's success and so she deserves to be in an equal partnership with him in what the household gains after the marriage.

By definition, she did not contribute to assets placed in service before the marriage and so she doesn't deserve a share of those upon divorce.

This doesn't sound unreasonable for me, but then again, I'm a man.

It would definitely discourage predatory marriages where the spouse feigns affection for someone to get their money, which by definition is a good thing.

However ... I thought there was no divorce in the Philippines, or at least it was extremely hard to obtain so this would be a rare situation, correct?

Hope that helps.

(If you want me to respond, please reply in all English - I apologize for this but I am a horrible linguist and know only one language ).

D

[jay_sn0w]

YES kaau! :mrgreen: maau ni to assure that dli wealth ang giapas sa imong spouse nimo..

mao jd..sak2 ne...

[eirawn]

sus ka ngindot ra ani ah..

[giddyboy]

However ... I thought there was no divorce in the Philippines, or at least it was extremely hard to obtain so this would be a rare situation, correct?

Hope that helps.

(If you want me to respond, please reply in all English - I apologize for this but I am a horrible linguist and know only one language ).

D

we don't have divorce in the Phils., but we have annulment of marriage. i think it is just a formality (this new bill) coz we don't have one like this since eons ago.

yes, it would just be logical for these things, meaning, a spouse has no right over the property that his or her partner obtained prior to the wedding.

now after the wedding, the idea of "shared" property or assets will now come into play here.

i have seen 2 or 3 couples separating without any clear idea (to the point of fighting over, w/ cups & saucers flying in the air) whom gets what after. in this case, when they file for annulment, there is always an amicable settlement. but sometimes, even if the spouse agrees to it, it doesn't automatically mean it's justifiable per se.

[Godfather]

What difference is there between this house bill and the law that defines conjugal properties?

[cebu-future]

maau na

[cebu1029]

nice opinion david!

yeah till the divorce bill pushes through this bill should stay in congress!!! whats the point right? this is like the pre-nuptial agreement!

[ed168II]

i think this is known as conjugal property right.. i think people who wr married before 1986 r governed by this law pro after the said yr absolute property right governs, n this is the current law. inheritance acquired before and after marriage form part of the property of the family.. its gud ilang gbalik.