not fall within the legal regime of community bonds and deposits in bank accounts purchased by a spouse before marriage, with personal property, and then reinvested in wedlock. In this case examination of Supreme Court lacked, in the negotiations, the declaration pursuant to Art. 179 lett.f) CC (on the personal nature of the property used for the purchase later, in wedlock and under the joint estate of a new well).
The Court, however, considered it unnecessary that declaration in cases where the objective evidence concerning the origin of goods from other personal property, eg in the event of exchange, can not create any doubt about the personality of the good In recognition of the importance of the declaration only if it can raise doubts about the nature of personal property used. If in fact there is objective certainty about the nature of good staff used, the declaration referred to. 179 Lett. f) becomes superfluous, given the nature of its reconnaissance of the existence of the conditions for purchasing staff.
In other words, the fungible nature of money and recognition to the issues related to the ownership of the same can not, however, impede the applicability of 'art. 179 Lett. f) is satisfied if the personal nature of such property, acquired before the marriage, and the resulting personal nature of the goods bought with it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment