BEA ALONZO & THE POISON PILL: Can Custody of a Child Be Revoked in a Prenuptial Agreement?
Good day to all of you, my friends and my colleagues. For our discussion today, we will discuss a very hot and huge news that is currently spreading on social media. Actually, it is a bit late for me to post this because this news has been out for several weeks. But the topic is very important for those who are planning, getting married and the wealth of each party is not equal because the future
husband and wife have a marriage settlement or property relationship agreement. Okay. So here is this controversial news about the cancellation or the wedding of the famous actress Bea Alonso and her boyfriend, her boyfriend is the heir to the Pure Gold and Costco Empire, Vinco. So maybe you know what Pure Gold is and maybe you have also done your grocery shopping here.
It is a very big store. And according to the news, their wedding destination is set to be in Spain this mid-May. They should have gotten married probably in the second week of May. But the big surprise of all this is that it was completely canceled. The root of the severe separation or the failure of their marriage.
Not because of a lack of love, but because of a disagreement over the provisions of their marriage settlement or better known as the prenuptial agreement or sometimes others call it a prenup. Okay. So this is the agreement regarding the management and uh property regime of the future husband and wife.
So as law students and as citizens, this is a great opportunity to serve as a case study. How does the prenup or the prenuptial agreement work in our country? What can and cannot be included in this contract? So I won’t discuss that in detail, so please sit down now.
Grab some popcorn or peanuts. And for the next 15 minutes, we will break it down using our family code or family law and the decisions of our supreme court. What we call jurisprudence. Okay? So let’s start talking about what this prenup or what is called a marriage settlement is? Let’s start with the story of two people who are getting married.
Imagine the man is from a billionaire family with large corporations. And the woman is a famous actress who also has her own savings of properties, lands and businesses and still continues to earn money because of commercial endorsements of different products and services.
So this artist is really earning a lot and can be considered a multimillionaire. So before they get married, it’s normal for wealthy families like this to talk about protecting their wealth. This is where what we call a marriage settlement comes in. That’s it.\
That’s what the preenok is all about. Now, what does our law say when it comes to situations like this? So here we’ll take a look at Article 75 of the Family Code of the Philippines because this is the applicable provision of the law that can be applied in the case of Bea Alonso and her husband. It says in Article 75 that the future husband and wife may not agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property or any other property regime in the marriage settlements. So before
they get married, they can talk about that because the wealth is what’s being discussed here. What is it? Absolute community of property, conjugal or complete separation of property. So this usually happens to super rich couples who are single. In short, before getting married, the couple can choose how to divide their assets. If they don’t sign a prenuptial agreement, the absolute community of property automatically comes into play. If there is no signed print up, and there is no property regime agreement, the absolute community of property comes into play. What this means is that everything you owned before you got married and everything you earn while you are married will be owned by both of you.
You share everything. What is yours is mine and what is mine is yours. Okay? That’s clear. That’s the absolute community of property. Now, for people like Bea and Vincent, the most practical option is what is called the regime of complete separation of property. This is under articles 143 to 146 of the family code.
Excuse me. So under 143 and article 146 of the family code, your money is your money. My money is my money. There is no property involved. Even if you are married, it is completely legal and protective for both parties. But there are strict requisites to this. The law has strict requisites for a prenuptial agreement to be valid.
Okay? So let’s take a look at article 77 of the family code where it is mentioned that before you get married, both parties must have a signed agreement. It must be said in that article, it must be executed before the celebration of the marriage. That means it was done before the wedding.
So number one, what is the requisite of the family law? When you get married without a print, your property regime is locked. If you want to change it while you are already married, you still need to file a petition with the court for judicial approval of voluntary dissolution of property under article 136, which is a long, expensive and public process.
So it is really important that when the assets of the future husband and wife are large and the wedding is imminent, it is discussed thoroughly and sometimes the parents get involved and interfere because if the man is super rich like you think, the son of a multibillionaire who inherits businesses and wealth, then the parents will definitely not interfere and of course, when it is not later, there will be no settlement or free up automatically by operation of law, the
absolute community of property will govern. Okay. So in the case of Bea and Vincent Koh, we saw the poison pills in the marriage settlement or the illegal provisions in their proposed marriage settlement. Now let’s continue the story. Why did you say that Beat’s camp and my family consulted but they didn’t.
Why didn’t Bea’s camp and Co’s family agree? According to the reports that came out, the prepared draft, the sample of the prenup of the man’s camp is not just a simple division of property. It supposedly contains. These are heavy conditions or what we call poison pills. What I mentioned earlier.
There are poison pills. the agreement, the proposed agreement that is written down in the drop. So this is what we should learn, right? This is where we should learn. Just because the two of you signed a contract makes it legal. There are limits to our freedom to make a contract. It’s not just any contract. Okay.
So let’s go back to article 1306. Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is the message conveyed by article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines? It says that the contracting parties may establish such closes, terms and conditions as they made them convenient. provided I repeat provided so there is exemption provided they are not contrary to law morals good customs public order or public policy when one steps out of the financial issue and enters the issue of personal morals and civil rights of the person. Ah there
that he is becoming a contract ignoramus. Will the contract lose its visa? So let’s take a look at the two most controversial issues in this issue. We are discussing this because other bloggers, lawyers have already discussed this, right? So it has become public knowledge again. So that’s why we are just repeating it and ah we are explaining it more in an easier to understand provision of the Family Code and the Civil Code of the Philippines.
This is for educational no for academic purposes on this discussion. Okay? So here there is a controversy regarding child custody waiver, ah the withdrawal of rights to the child. Okay. Reports say that there is a provision in the drop agreement which states that in case the couple separates in the future.
The custody or care of their future children will automatically go to the man’s family and the woman will voluntarily give up her rights as a mother. That’s a bit of a legal problem, what’s the problem, you put a provision like that. Horses, laws, in Philippine law, the advanced waiver or early surrender of custody of an unborn child within a prenup is absolutely null and void.
Why? Because it is clearly contrary to public policy or public policy. We have what is called the tender tender years doctrine which we can find in article 213 of the second paragraph of the family code of the Philippines and it is often used as an example or citation by courts when there is a matter regarding child custody, where it is said that no child under 7 years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling reason for such measure. So I am sure that
mommies of mothers know this, especially single parents who have minors less than 7 years old. They know very well that their children cannot be separated from them unless the court finds compelling reasons for such measure. So if the mother is not in an illegal and immoral environment, you cannot take away the custody of the child from her.
Okay? The law is clear. A child who is seven years old and below cannot be separated from his mother. Unless the court has a very serious reason such as, of course, the mother being addicted to drugs or neglect, or being in an immoral environment that is doing something, right? All men are in her house. Okay.
So this right is a mother of a mother and a baby, it is assigned by law for the protection of the child. This is not something that can be traded, given away or surrendered in a prenuptial agreement before the couple has a child. It is absolutely forbidden to put that in a prenuptial agreement.
If I were the woman, I would not sign the prenuptial agreement, wouldn’t you consult a lawyer? That’s your inherent right, okay? To further confirm this, we have a famous jurisprudence or what is called a Supreme Court decision. This is the case of Pablo Gualberto versus Gualberto.
In this case, the Supreme Court said that the only standard used when it comes to custody of the child is the best interests of the child. Meaning, that cannot be made into an agreement. If there is an agreement, the court will interpret it. No, and the second issue that came up was that there were restrictions on the lifestyle or behavior of the woman.
There is a saying that it is forbidden to raise your voice, right? It is forbidden to fight. The woman must live in the compound of the man’s family. So when it comes to these proposed stipulations in the marriage settlement, what does our family law say? No, let’s relax and let’s explain it in an easy-to-understand explanation so that you know what to do when you are faced with this kind of situation.
So marriage is not just a piece of paper or a civil contract that can be filled with company rules and regulations. Because it is clear from article 1 or article 1 that has already been detailed. Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines. Marriage is an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation.
So it is not subject to stipulation. Although it is a contract but it is not subject to stipulation. This means that the effects and rules of marriage are determined by the state. Not by the whims of the parties. So ah, those kinds of proposals cannot be made in merit settlements.
Now let’s look at article 68 of the family code, it says in article 68, husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual health and support. So, is there any clarity, is there any mutual love, respect, fidelity, and render mutual help and support? They should cooperate and respect each other in all their rights.
And when it comes to housing, article 69 says that the husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. Okay. So the family domicile where they will live, they will decide that. And if they cannot agree, the court will intervene, and it will decide.
That means, you will go to court to file a petition. So that rarely happens, you will go to court and let the court intervene between you two. Okay. If you notice, the law itself says that the choice of residence must be an agreement between the husband and wife. Joint, what is that, joint decision.
If the man’s family puts in a permanent, close, prap that takes away the woman’s right to decide where they will live. this violates the spirit of equal standing of husband and wife under our law. So clearly, such proposed stipulations cannot be made in their marriage settlement.
So women and men should be equally no equal standing. Both of them will decide and in case of this agreement the court shall decide ‘ba. So the imposition of penalties or financial fines whenever there is an emotional reaction or a fight between husband and wife is also against good manners no morals and ah public policy.
Marriage is built for love and of course there is love and respect for each other. Not to be a hawla. No, you are like a bird locked inside a hawla where every move of the husband has a corresponding financial fine or threat of loss of ah rights.
Ah I think any woman who is financially capable and beautiful no and has her own income. like this Bea Alonso, a very beautiful actress, very lucky in her career, but it seems that she is unlucky in her love, but anyway, if the situation is like that, she will definitely not agree to that kind of marriage settlement, like a bird imprisoned in a cage, like a bird free to fly, okay, so to summarize our lecture, Ah, has it been a minute? Let’s go back to the whole story
of Beya Alonso and Vincent Co from a legal perspective. Making prenuptial agreements is not bad. That is what almost all lovers do now before they get married. Former actresses who have done this are Sharon Koneta and Senator Kiko Pangilinan.
I know there is a complete separation of property. And many other actresses have done this. So in fact, for people who have their own big businesses, this is a smart step to avoid complicated court battles. In case their relationship succeeds. after the marriage my family’s right to protect their billionaire empire is of course also the right of Bea Alonso to be protected by her hard work as a famous artist for many
years through separation of property. It’s okay to have complete separation of property but don’t put the custody of the child away you can’t scream live there inside the compound of the man’s family here the mistake was ah according to the reports that came out no in the news reports is the exaggeration of the scope of the contract the draft tried to hold the rights of a mother to her future child no which is a clear violation of article 213 and the doctrine of the Pablo Galberto Case what I mentioned
The case that was decided by the Supreme Court earlier regarding the agreements prohibited by the family code and the civil code of the Philippines is that you cannot dictate the personal freedom and dignity of a person because a contract, when it crosses the line of what is required by law, will serve as a piece of paper with no legal effect.
It has no legal binding effect. Okay. So here we can see the beauty of the law in the Philippines. It protects our freedom to do business and own property. But it will never allow a marriage agreement to be a tool to enslave or control or deprive a woman or a fellow human being of her natural rights.
That is why from a legal perspective, the decision not to sign such a document and completely cancel the marriage is the right step. It is better to avoid a marriage that is tied to an illegal and oppressive contract. Rather than face a lifelong ordeal that will later be invalidated in court.
So it’s good for me in my own personal opinion this is a wise decision on the part of the other party not to sign if that’s how it feels like I’m being put inside a bird’s nest. Okay? So I hope you learned a lot from our lecture today. Remember, know your rights, always read the contracts before signing them.
And never let love be blind in the face of the law. So that’s all. This is your servant again, Attorney Rene Bueno. And let’s meet again in our next discussion here on my YouTube channel Juris Influencer Attorney Bueno at the Law. Long live everyone. M
