FRANCISCO VS CA

G.R. No. 102330. November 25, 1998

QUISUMBING, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Teresita Francisco is the wife of respondent Eusebio Franciso. Eusebios children
by the first marriage are also respondents in the case. The spouses have acquired a sari-sari
store, a residential house and lot, an apartment house, and an additional house and lot,
which were all administered by Eusebio until he was invalidated by tuberculosis, heart
disease, and cancer. Eusebios children by the first marriage succeeded in securing a general
power of attorney from their father which authorized Conchita (one of the children) to
administer the house and lot and the apartment. Petitioner filed a case for the annulment of
the general power of attorney and to be declared administratix of the properties. Trial court
rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents, saying that petitioner failed to prove
that the properties were acquired during the marriage. CA affirmed the decision of the trial
court.
Issue: WON CA erred in ruling that the properties arenot conjugal but capital
Held: NO. The party who invokes Art 160 must provethat the property in controversy was
acquired duringthe marriage. Proof of acquisition during overture is a condition sine qua non
for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal partnership. This presumption is
rebuttable only with strong, clear, andconvincing evidence. Petitioner, however, admitted
that Eusebio brought the land into their marriage, and evidence showed that he inherited it
from his parents. The property should be regarded as his own exclusively pursuant to A148
of CC. Essentially, property owned by a spouse prior to the marriage, and brought to the
marriage, is considered as his/her separate property. Acquisitions by lucrative title
areproperties acquired gratuitously by inheritance, devise, legacy, or donation. Hence, even
if it was acquired during the marriage, is it is Eusebios exclusive property by virtue of
lucrative title. Also, thefact that the land was registered in the name of Eusebio Francisco,
married to Teresita Francisco, is no proof that the property was acquired during the spouses
covered to. It is merely descriptive of the civil status of Eusebio. Finally, Eusebio was not
suffering from serious illness to impair his fitness to administer his property.