Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rita C. Quiao (Rita) filed a complaint for legal 2. NO. The petitioner did not acquire vested rights
separation against petitioner Brigido B. Quiao under Art 143 of the Civil Code. While one may not
(Brigido). RTC rendered a decision declaring be deprived of his vested rights, he may lose the
the legal separation, awarding the custody of their same as long as there is due process and such
3 minor children in favor of Rita and all remaining deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence.
properties shall be divided equally between the
spouses subject to the respective legitimes of the
Petitioner was accorded his right to due process as
children and the payment of the unpaid conjugal
shown by the proceedings held in the lower court.
liabilities.
Brigido’s share was forfeited in favor of the
common children because he is the offending 3. NO.
spouse (bad faith)
When a couple enters into a regime of the Tomas spouses, with damages. While the case
absolute community, the husband and the wife was still pending Alejandro passed away, his heirs,
become joint owners of all the properties of the including Estrella were substituted in his stead in
marriage. Whatever property each spouse brings the case. Estrella moved to amend the complaint to
into the marriage, and those acquired during the one for annulment of sale and cancellation of title,
marriage form the common mass of the couple’s but the court denied her motion. She moved to be
properties. And when the couple’s marriage or dropped as a party plantiff but was also denied.
community is dissolved, that common mass is
divided between the spouses, or their respective On June 11, 2005 Estrella filed a case for
heirs, equally or in the proportion the parties have annulment of sale and cancellation of title against
established, irrespective of the value each one may the Tomas Spouses, claiming the declaration of
have originally owned. absence and Alejandro’s authority to sell the lot are
null and void. The Tomas spouses prayed for the
On the other hand, when a couple enters into dismissal thereof on the ground of forum shopping.
a regime of conjugal partnership of gains under RTC ruled in favour of the Tomas spouses and
Article142 of the Civil Code, “the husband and the dismissed the annulment (of sale) case. CA
wife place in common fund the fruits of affirmed the decision.
their separate property and income from their work
ISSUES: Whether there was forum shopping
or industry, and divide equally, upon the
dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership,
HELD/RATIO: YES. Although the Court believes
the net gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately
that Estrella was not prompted by a desire to
by either spouse during the marriage.” From the
trifle with judicial processes, and was acting in
foregoing provision, each of the couple has his and
good faith in initiating the annulment case, still
her own property and debts. The law does not
the said case should be dismissed because it
intend to effect a mixture or merger of those debts
produces the same effect which the rule on
or properties between the spouses. Rather, it
forum shopping was fashioned to preclude. If
establishes a complete separation of capitals.
the collection case is not dismissed and it, together
with the annulment case, proceeds to finality, not
In the case at bar, it was already established by the only do we have a possibility of conflicting
trial court that the spouses have no separate decisions being rendered; an unfair situation, as
properties thus there is nothing to return to any of envisioned by the Tomas spouses, might arise
them. where after having paid the balance of the price as
ordered by the collection court, the cancellation of
Thus, ordinarily, what remains in the above-listed the TCT and return of the property could be
properties should be divided equally between the decreed by the annulment court.
spouses and/or their respective heirs. However,
since the trial court found the petitioner the guilty Court says that“the absence of the consent of one
party, his share from the net profits of the conjugal (spouse to a sale) renders the entire sale null and
partnership is forfeited in favor of the common void, including the portion of the conjugal property
children, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Family pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale.”
Code. However while Estrella is raring to file the
annulment case, she has to first cause the
dismissal of the collection case because she was
ORPIANO vs TOMAS (2013; DEL CASTILLO, J.)
by necessity substituted therein by virtue of her
FACTS: Petitioner Estrella Aduan Orpiano being Alejandro’s heir; but the collection court
(Estrella) is the widow of Alejandro Orpiano nonetheless blocked all her attempts toward such
(Alejandro). Part of their conjugal estate is an end. There exists a just cause for her to be
809.5-square meter lot in Quezon City covered by dropped as party plaintiff in the collection case so
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-23468 that she may institute and maintain the annulment
(the lot). In 1979 Estrella was declared an absent case without violating the rule against forum
spouse, and Alejandro was granted the authority to shopping. Estrella had the right to maintain the
sell the lot. On March 19, 1996, Alejandro sold the annulment case as a measure of protecting her
lot on installment basis to the Tomas Spouses conjugal share (but the issue of whether the sale
(respondents), the very same day a title was should be annulled is a different matter altogether).
issued in the name of the Tomas Spouses. They Despite all these reasons, Estrella is still not
had until December to complete paying for the land. allowed to take prodecural short cuts.
On Oct 28, 1996 Alejandro filed a case at the QC
RTC, seeking collection of the amount unpaid by
NOTES: In case ma’am asks, a summary of the his wife, however, left the property in August 1985
parties’ contentions: for personal reasons.
Estrella argues that were merely substituted in the February 1988, Romeo learns from godmother of
case as his heirs by operation of law; thus, she his wedding that son of godmother, Virgilio Castro
should not be bound by the collection case. She (VC, petitioner), who happens to be Romeo’s
further adds that there is obviously no identity of neighbor, that the Paco property was being sold to
parties, cause of action, or reliefs prayed for VC. A thirty thousand peso downpayment was
between the collection and annulment cases; the made by godmother to Moises for her son.
two involve absolutely opposite reliefs. She
stresses the fact that she is seeking annulment of April 1988, Alexander agrees to sell his share of
the sale with respect only to her conjugal share, the Paco property for P42,750.00; a partial
and not those of her co-heirs. payment was made in the sum of P6,000 by
Romeo but Alexander did not execute a deed of
Tomas spouses emphasize that the rule prohibiting assignment in favor of his brother because “he had
forum shopping precisely seeks to avoid the lots of work to do and the title was already in
situation where the two courts – the collection court Romeo’s possession.”
and the annulment court – might render two
separate and contradictory decisions. If the Downpayment information corroborated by
annulment case is allowed to proceed, then it could Virgilio Miat (brother of Moises) and Pedro
result in a judgment declaring the sale null and void, Miranda (who worked with Moises in two
just as a decision in the collection case could be hotels: Bayview Hotel and Hotel Filipinas) but
issued ordering them to pay the balance of the Alexander later said that he did not consider
price, which is tantamount to a declaration that the the money to be a downpayment but a
sale is valid. personal debt due to Romeo.
11 APRIL 2011
ISSUE: The issue is whether or not the property On August 31, 1988, petitioner filed a suit for
disputed, for the reason that it was acquired during damages and for annulment of said general power
the marriage, is conjugal. of attorney, and thereby enjoining its
enforcement. Petitioner also sought to be declared
HELD: Court rules in favor of Katigbak and Kalaw. as the administratrix of the properties in dispute. In
There is no denying that all properties acquired due course, the trial court rendered judgment in
during the marriage are, by law, presumed favor of private respondents. It held that the
conjugal. (Art. 160, Civil Code) The presumption, petitioner failed to adduce proof that said
however, is not conclusive but merely rebuttable, properties were acquired during the existence of
("unless it be proved that the property belongs the second conjugal partnership, or that they
exclusively to the husband or the wife.") pertained exclusively to the petitioner. Hence, the
court ruled that those properties belong exclusively
The deed to the disputed land is in the name of the to Eusebio, and that he has the capacity to
wife. At the time of its purchase, the property was administer them.
already of such substantial value as admittedly, the
husband, by himself could not have afforded to buy, On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in
considering that singular source of income then toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, this
was his P200.00 a month salary from a Manila petition.
Bank. As in the Casiano case, supra, the
defendant herein testified, and was believe by the Issue: WoN the appellate court committed
trial court, that the purchase price was furnish by reversible error in affirming the trial court’s ruling
her mother so she could buy the property for that the properties are not conjugal but the capital
herself. Furthermore, it was established during the properties of Eusebio exclusively.
trial that it was a practice of defendant's parents to
so provide their children with money to purchase Held: No error.
realties for themselves.
FC cannot be invoked without impairing vested
Francisco vs CA, 1998 rights, hence, New Civil Code will be used to
resolve the issue at hand,
Ponente: Quisumbing
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that “all
property of the marriage is presumed to belong to
Facts: the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the
Petitioner is the legal wife of private respondent wife.” However, the party who invokes this
Eusebio Francisco (Eusebio) by his second presumption must first prove that the property in
marriage. Private respondents Conchita controversy was acquired during the marriage. In
Evangelista, Araceli F. Marilla and Antonio this case, petitioner failed to adduce ample
Francisco are children of Eusebio by his first evidence to show that the properties which she
marriage. claimed to be conjugal were acquired during her
marriage with Eusebio.
Petitioner alleges that since their marriage on
February 10, 1962, she and Eusebio have Regarding land Rizal—petitioner failed to refute the
acquired the following: (1) a sari-sari store, a testimony of Eusebio that he inherited the same
residential house and lot, and an apartment house, from his parents. Interestingly, petitioner even
all situated at Col. S. Cruz St., Barangay Balite, admitted that Eusebio brought into their marriage
Rodriguez (formerly Montalban), Rizal, and; (2) a the said land, albeit in the concept of a possessor
house and lot at Barrio San Isidro, Rodriguez, only as it was not yet registered in his name.
Rizal. Petitioner further avers that these properties
were administered by Eusebio until he was Whether Eusebio succeeded to the property prior
invalidated on account of tuberculosis, heart or subsequent to his second marriage is
disease and cancer, thereby, rendering him unfit to inconsequential. The property should be regarded
administer them. Petitioner also claims that private as his own exclusively, as a matter of law, pursuant
respondents succeeded in convincing their father to Article 148 of the New Civil Code.
Essentially, property already owned by a spouse
prior to the marriage, and brought to the marriage, It is admitted that the jewels in question, before the
is considered his or her separate possession of the same was given to the plaintiff,
property. Acquisitions by lucrative title refers to belonged to the defendant personally and that she
properties acquired gratuitously and include those had inherited the same from her mother. The
acquired by either spouse during the marriage by defendant, Lucia Martinez, is the widow of
inheritance, devise, legacy, or donation. Hence, Domingo Franco, and after the death of her
even if it be assumed that Eusebio’s acquisition by husband she was appointed administratrix of his
succession of the land took place during his estate.
second marriage, the land would still be his
“exclusive property” because it was acquired by A short time before the death of Domingo Franco
him, “during the marriage, by lucrative title.” he borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of P4,500
and gave as security for the payment of said sum
Regarding sari-sari store, etc—the fact that one is the jewelry described in the complaint.
the applicant or licensee is not determinative of the
issue as to whether or not the property is conjugal The jewelry was contained in a box which remains
or not. closed after the jewels were shown to Mariano
Veloso. The document further admits that the key
Regarding property in Rizal—the fact that the land shall remain in possession of Domingo Franco.
was registered in the name of “Eusebio Francisco, After the death of Domingo Franco it appears that
married to Teresita Francisco”, is no proof that the said jewelry was found in the same “caja” and that
property was acquired during the spouses the key was in the possession of the defendant.
coverture. Acquisition of title and registration From the facts, it is doubtful whether the plaintiff
thereof are two different acts. It is well settled that ever obtained the actual possession of the jewelry.
registration does not confer title but merely
confirms one already existing. His possession, however, seems to be admitted by
the defendant in the present action. So far as the
*Insofar as the administration of the subject record shows the jewelry was in the same box
properties is concerned, it follows that Eusebio where it was found at the time of the execution and
shall retain control thereof considering that the delivery of said Exhibit C and that the defendant
assets are exclusively his capital. Even assuming still has the key to said box.
for the sake of argument that the properties are
conjugal, petitioner cannot administer them During the trial the plaintiff attempted to show that
inasmuch as Eusebio is not the jewels in question were pawned to him by
incapacitated. Contrary to the allegation of Domingo Franco, with the full knowledge and
petitioner, Eusebio, as found by the lower court, is consent of the defendant. The defendant positively
not suffering from serious illness so as to impair his denies that she knew that her husband had
fitness to administer his properties. That he is pawned her jewels or that she promised to redeem
handicapped due to a leg injury sustained in a the same by paying the amount due. No
bicycle accident, allegedly aggravated when explanation is contained in the record why the
petitioner pushed him to the ground in one of their jewels were placed in said box (presumably a
occasional quarrels, did not render him, in the money safe).
Court’s view, incapacitated to perform acts of
administration over his own properties. Held: The Court finds that the defendant is entitled
to the possession of said jewels, or to their value,
Veloso vs Martinez, 1914 amounting to P6,000.
*Dapat may kasamang dispute over land, but In view of the fact that the record shows that
because defendant withdrew her appeal over the the jewels were the sole and separate property
recovery of the land, recovery of jewelry na lang of the wife, acquired from her mother, and in
yung mode. Yung land, lower court found na the absence of further proof, we must presume
plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of it that they constituted a part of her paraphernal
yadayada. property. As such paraphernal property she
exercised dominion over the same. (Article
Issue: “The only question remaining, therefore, for 1382, Civil Code.) She had the exclusive control
this court to decide is as to the ownership and right and management of the same, until and unless
of possession of said jewels.” she had delivered it to her husband, before a
notary public, with the intent that the husband
Facts: might administer it properly. (Article 1384, Civil
Code.) There is no proof in the record that she had The retirement
ever delivered the same to her husband, in any benefits were then decided by GSIS to be distribut
manner, or for any purpose. That being true, she ed among the heirs in the ff. manner:
could not be deprived of the same by any act of her 77/134 – for his widow
husband, without her consent, and without 10/134 – for his 4 legitimate children
compliance with the provisions of the Civil Code 5/134 – for his acknowledged natural child
above cited. 4/134 – for his 3 illegitimate children
Berciles vs GSIS, 1984 Both families appealed the GSIS decision. Hence
this petition.
Ponente: Guerrero
Nature: Petition for certiorari Issue: Validity of the GSIS decision contained in its
Resolution No. 43,
Facts: finding private respondent Pascual Voltaire
Judge Pascual G. Berciles of the Court of First Berciles as an acknowledged
Instance of Cebu died in office on August 21, 1979 natural child of the late Judge Pascual G. Berciles
at the age of sixty-six years, death caused by and the other
“cardiac arrest due to cerebral vascular accident.” private respondents, namely Maria Luisa Berciles
Having served the government for more than 34 Villareal, Mercy
years, 26 years in the judiciary, the late Judge Berciles Patacsil and Rhoda Berciles as illegitimate
Berciles was eligible for retirement so that his heirs children of the
were entitled to survivors benefits amounting to deceased, and thus, upon this finding, disposed
P311,460.00. the retirement benefits
in the manner and proportion set forth in said
Other benefits accruing to the heirs of the resolution after
deceased consist of the unpaid considering said benefits as partly conjugal and
salary, the money value of his terminal leave and r partly exclusive.
epresentation and
transportation allowances, computed at P60,817.5 Held: In fine, We hold and rule that the respondent
2, and the return of retirement premiums paid by GSIS committed grave abuse
the retiree in the amount of P9,700.00 to be paid of discretion in approving Resolution No. 431 which
by the GSIS. adopted the erroneous recommendation of the
Committee on Claims Settlement, a
Such benefits are now being claimed by two recommendation which has no legal or factual
families, both of whom claim to be the deceased’s basis to stand on.
lawful heirs:
Accordingly, the disposition made by respondent
Illuminada Ponce Berciles GSIS of the retirement
(petitioner) and the legitimate children filed for survi benefits due the heirs of the late Judge Pascual G.
vors benefits which was duly supported by the Berciles is consequently erroneous and not in
required documents (i.e. marriage certificate) accordance with law. Petitioners are the lawful
heirs entitled to the distribution of the benefits
Flor Fuentebella, who also claims to be married to which shall accrue to the estate of the deceased
Berciles. The natural child and the Judge Berciles and will be distributed among the
illegitimate children also filed the same claim. petitioners as his legal heirs in accordance with the
As proof of her marriage to Berciles, the ff. were law on intestate succession.
presented:
*Pano nila nalaman na petitioners yung lawful
-Flor claimed that their marriage certificate heirs?
was destroyed due to the
war. Instead, she presented sworn statements of ot Judge’s alleged marriage to Flor Fuentebella
her people attesting to her marriage to Berciles was not sufficiently proved and
therefore the children begotten with her are
-For the children, a baptismal certificate either natural or illegitimate
and certifications that the birth certificates of the children depending on whether they have been bor
other children were destroyed due to the war. n before or after the marriage with Iluminada
Ponce.
-Family pictures, letters from Berciles
-We have examined carefully this birth the deceased Judge, only they are entitled to share
certificate and We find that the same is not signed thereto.
by either the father or the mother. The
mere certificate by the registrar *Acquired by redemption/exchange
without the signature of the father is not proof of vol
untary acknowledgment on his part. AMALIA PLATA, petitioner,
vs.
-As to the baptismal certificate, the rule is HON. NICASIO YATCO, Judge, Court of First
that although the baptismal record of a natural child Instance of Rizal, Branch V; BENITO
describes her as a child of the decedent, yet, if in MACROHON, Sheriff of Quezon City and The
the preparation of the record the decedent had no Spouses CESAREA E. VILLANUEVA and
intervention, the GREGORIO LEAÑO respondent 1964
baptismal record cannot be held to be a voluntary r
ecognition of parentage. Ponente: JBL Reyes
Nature: Writ of certiorari against CFI of Rizal
IN SHORT: Although illegitimate kiddies are
entitled to support and successional rights, there Facts:
must be admission or recognition of paternity of
child! In this case, wala. In 1954, Amalia Plata purchased a parcel of land in
Caloocan, Rizal, for which the Provincial Register
How the Court divided the shiz: of Deeds issued Torrens Certificate of Title in her
name. On February 1958, she sold the property to
According to Article 996 of the New Civil Code one Celso Saldaña who obtained TCT therefor; but
which provides that “If a on September 1958, Saldaña resold the same
widow or Widower and legitimate children or property to Amalia Plata, and a new certificate of
descendants are left, the Title was issued to the her.
surviving spouse has in the succession the same
share as that of each of On the same day, Plata, in consideration of a loan
the children,” and Article 980 which provides that of P3,000, mortgaged to Cesarea Villanueva
“The children of married to Gregorio Leaño, the identical property
the deceased shall always inherit from him in their and its improvements "of which the mortgagor
own right, dividing declares to be hers as the absolute owner thereof."
the inheritance in equal shares,” the retirement The mortgage was also signed by Plata’s husband,
benefits shall be Gaudencio Begosa, as co-mortgagor.
distributed equally to the five (5) heirs: Iluminada
Ponce Berciles, For failure to pay the mortgage, the same was
Ilona Berciles Alvarez, Ellery P. Berciles, England extrajudicially foreclosed under Act 3135, and sold
P. Berciles and Ione on 12 April 1960 to the mortgagee as the highest
P. Berciles. bidder; on 13 May 1961, the Sheriff issued a final
deed of sale on the strength of which the Register
As to the retirement premiums totalling P9,700.00, of Deeds issued the buyer TCT.
the same is presumed
conjugal property, there being no proof that the Subsequently, the respondent, Villanueva, sued
premiums were paid from Gaudencio Begosa alone for illegal detainer and
the exclusive funds of the deceased Judge (Article obtained final judgment against him. A writ of
160, New Civil execution was duly issued, but Amalia Plata
Code). Such being the case, one-half of the resisted all efforts to eject her from the property,
amount belongs to the wife and she filed a third party claim, averring
as her property in the conjugal partnership and the ownership of the property. Upon motion of the
other half shall go judgment creditors, the CFI cited both Begosa and
to the estate of the deceased Judge which shall in Plata for contempt.
turn be distributed
to his legal heirs.--> parang ito lang yung part na Issue: WoN Plata is bound by the detainer
may relation sa CPG. O_O judgment against her husband, Begosa.
With respect to the terminal leave pay, unpaid
salary and allowances Argument ni Plata: She says was never lawfully
accruing to the deceased, since petitioners are the married to Begosa, and that she had acquired the
only lawful heirs of property while still single, and was in possession
thereof when the Sheriff of Rizal attempted to (respondent) were married on December 1983.
enforce the writ of ejectment.
1993- Darlene filed for declaration of nullity of
Counter-argument: Respondent Villanueva and her marriage against respondent. Petitioner alleged
husband maintain, on the other hand, that Plata respondent gave priority to the needs of his
had repeatedly acknowledged being married to parents, would come home past midnight and even
Begosa; that she had lived with him openly as his tried to convert her to his religion. Jesse stopped
wife, and their marriage is presumed, ergo she is to support since 1990 and abandoned the conjugal
be deemed bound by the judgment against the home and stopped supporting the children.
latter.
Petitioner prayed for dissolution of CPG, custody of
SC: No, Plata is not bound by detainer judgment! children and support of 25k monthly.
Evidence of marriage between Plata and Begosa is 1997- RTC denied the petition for nullity but
weak. Despite the well-known presumption that dissolving the CPG and declaring that all
persons openly living together as husband and propertiesare conjugal. CA affirmed with
wife are legally married to each other, STILL, the modification ruling of RTC. CA rejected the
respondents Villanueva could not ignore the argument of respondent that CPG must not be
paraphernal character of the property in question, dissolved because marriage was not declared null
which had been unquestionably acquired by Plata and void. CA excluded other properties that are not
while still single, as shown by TCT of Rizal (Art. conjugal in nature because it belonged to the
148 of the New Civil Code). respondent's parents.
The subsequent conveyance thereof to Celso
Saldaña, and the reconveyance of her several ISSUE: WON properties excluded by the CA are
months afterward of the same property, did not conjugal?
transform it from paraphernal to conjugal property,
HELD: No. CA is correct is exluding properties that
there being no proof that the money paid to
Saldaña came from common or conjugal funds are registered in the name of respondent's parents.
(Civ. Code, Art 153). The deed of mortgage in CA excluded ancestral house and lot in Batangas.
favor of respondents Villanueva actually recites
The property at Batangas, although "sold" to
that the petitioner was the owner of the tenement in
respondent are still his parents because it was
question. It is true that Gaudencio Begosa signed
proven that it was merely an accommodation so
the mortgage as a co-mortgagor; but by itself alone
that Darlene can acquire loan at the BSP using
that circumstance would not suffice to convert the
properties as collateral. The gas station was
land into conjugal property, considering that it was
managed by Jesse as atty in fact of his mother.
paraphernal in origin.
Duplex house however is conjugal as there is no
Since the property was paraphernal, and the proof to provide otherwise that it was obtained
creditors and purchasers were aware of it, the fact through the income of Jeddah Caltex Station.
being clearly spread on the land records, it is plain
that Plata's possession, therefore, was not derived *Declaration of nullity cannot be issued because of
from Gaudencio Begosa. The illegal detainer failure to show the seriousness of the incapacity.
judgment against the husband alone cannot bind
nor affect the wife's possession of her paraphernal,
which by law she holds and administers
independently, and which she may even encumber MANOTOK V CA
or alienate without his knowledge or consent (Civ.
Code, Arts. 136. 137, 140). Hence, as she was not FACTS:
made party defendant in the eviction suit, the
petitioner-wife could validly ignore the judgment of Manotok Realty is registered owner of a parcel of
eviction against her husband, and it was no land in the city of Manila. It acquired property by
contempt of court for her to do so, because the writ Testate Estate of Clara Tambunting being the
of execution was not lawful against her. highest bidder in a sale by the Probate Court.
Darlene Laurena (petitioner) and Jesse Laurena Carillo contends he got the property from deed of
assignment by Delfin Dayrit which acquired the RTC denied motion of Ramon. CA affirmed
property from Tambunting by virtue of a contract of decision of RTC.
Sale in installment basis. Dayrit failed to pay,
Carillo took over the payment but spouse of Clara ISSUE: WON auction sale of the property in
refused to accept any payment. Dayrit conveyed dispute is null and void because of its conjugal
the lot to Carillo. nature which the wife cannot legally bind?
RTC ordered Carillo to vacate the property. CA HELD: No. The lot is paraphernal. The mere use of
modified RTC decision declaring Carillo as a the surname of the husband in the tax declaration
builder in good faith. of the subject property is not sufficient proof to hold
that said property was acquired during the
Manotok maintains that Carillo is not bcause at the marriage and is therefore conjugal.
time of the execution of the deed of assignment of
Dayrit to Carillo, the land was already registered It is not properly proved that the property was
under Manotok Realty. acquired during the marriage. PNB v CA "When
the property is registered in the name of the
ISSUE: WON refusal of the husband of Clara spouse and there is no showing as to when the
Tambunting to accept payment of the land in property was acquired by said spouse, there is an
question makes the respondent, Carillo a indication that the property belongs exclusively to
possessor in good faith? said spouse".
The act of registration served as notice to the May 1996- Antonia obtained from A.C. Aguila a
whole world and the title issued in favor of loan in the sum of 250k which was payable on or
petitioner made his ownership conclusive upon and before July 7, 1996. Antonia mortgaged the
against all persons including Dayrit. property.
Further, Carillo did not even bother to inquire about 1997- Antonia executed Deed of Sale over the
the certificate of title covering the lot in question to property in favor of Gemma Avila for 600k. Avila
verify who was the real owner therof. became the owner of the property.
1961- Ramon Ong filed a complaint against March 1998- Antonia filed Affidavit of Adverse
Arsenio Camino to annul action sale of a parcel of Claim, stating that she was the lawful owner of the
land allegedly owned conjugally by Ramon and property in the name of Gemma and that the Deed
Teodoro Ong. of Abs. Sale between her and Gemma was
simulated.
Said auction was done bec. of judgment rendered
in favor of Francisco Boix, ordering Teodora Ong to Gemma failed to pay the loan. Far East caused for
pay the former 2.8l. the foreclosure of the property, it was auction and
Far East bought it as the highest bidder.
Teodora Ong had her own logging business. The
loan from Francisco Boix was secured by her for May 1998- Antonia filed annulment of deed of sale
the same. Teodora defaulted, Boix sued her and against Gemma stating as ground that the sale
won. Sherriff Arsenio Camino levied on the was not consented by her husband Antegono who
property under the sole name of Teodora Ong in a had already died.
tax declaration.
RTC found property to be conjugal in nature and
the DOAS issued for Gemma was void. CA reconveyance of several properties which
reversed the decision. The property was she claims are her conjugal properties
paraphernal in nature for failure of Antonia to with Nicolas
properly present evidence. 1994: RTC in favor of Eusebia; solid
evidence which proved that subject
ISSUE: Whether or not the property is conjugal properties were acquired during her
and therefore the DOAS between Gemma and marriage with Nicolas; Pacita failed to
Antonia void? prove they were paraphernal
o Eusebia as sole administrator,
HELD: No. Article 160 of the Civil Code--> all defendants to turnover all
property of marriage is presumed to belong to the proceeds/income of conjugal
conjugal partnership, unless proven that it pertains properties and to reconvey land in
exclusively to the husband or the wife. Proof of Mandaue to Eusebia and Nicolas
acquisition (when the property was acquired) is 1997: CA upheld RTC ruling
a necessary condition for the operation of the
presumption in favor of conjugal partnership Issue: WoN the subject properties are conjugal
properties of Eusebia and Nicolas
Case at bar, dela Peñas did not even come close
to proving that subject property was acquired Held: Yes
during the marriage. The record is bereft of any FC provisions on conjugal partnerships
evidence from which the actual date of acquisition govern the property relations between
of realty can be ascertained. Nicolas and Eusebia even if they were
married before its effectivity
Registration of Pedra, married to _____ is merely
o FC shall apply to conjugal
descriptive and does not sufficiently establish
partnerships established before
conjugal nature of the property.
FC without prejudice to vested
DOAS between Antonia and Gemma is therefore rights already acquired under the
valid, Far East claim of the property can now be CC or other laws (FC 105)
given due course. If properties are acquired during the
marriage, the presumption is that they are
Villanueva v. CA and Heirs of Eusebia Retuya conjugal
GR No. 143286, April 14, 2004 o Proved by tax declarations
Carpio, J. covering subject properties and
unrebutted testimony of Eusebia’s
Petition for review on certiorari to reverse CA witnesses
decision Even if tax declarations
are just under Nicolas’
Facts: name alone, the
1926: Eusebia and Nicolas Retuya presumption that it
married, 5 children, acquired 22 real belongs to conjugal
properties in Mandaue City, and property remains (FC
Consolacion, Cebu 116)
o Nicolas co-owner of parcel of land o Burden of proof to prove it is
in Mandaue, inherited from exclusive property rests on the
parents and hereditary shares of party asserting it
8 parcels of land in Mandaue Evidence shown was not
Land earned income clear and convincing
from coconuts + lease WoN a property is conjugal is determined
1945: Nicolas stopped living with his by law and not by will of one of the
legitimate family, cohabited with Pacita spouses
o Pacita no more occupation (full o Nicolas misrepresented his civil
time kabit) and no properties of status as single to exclude
her own Eusebia from her lawful share in
o had illegitimate son, Procopio the conjugal property is not
1985: Nicolas suffered stroke, can’t walk allowed by law!
and talk anymore, kabits madamot. Even if Pacita had financial capacity, she
1988: Eusebia filed complaint against her failed to prove that she bought Lot 152
Nicolas, Pacita, and Procopio for
with her own money or even contributed to o Lands are conjugal properties
acquire it sold without his knowledge or
o Reliance on FC 148 is misplaced. consent
Must prove “actual joint o CFI declared lands as exclusive
contribution” by both live-in and paraphernal properties of
partners before the property wife
becomes co-owned by them in CA reversed CFI
proportion to their contribution
Cohabitation of a spouse with another Issue: WoN properties in question are conjugal
person, even for a long period of time, properties of Ponciano and Julia
does not sever the tie of a subsisting
previous marriage Held: Yes, disputed properties were acquired by
onerous title during the marriage using funds that
Petition denied. CA decision affirmed. came from loans obtained by the spouses.
That which is acquired by onerous title
during marriage at the expense of the
Mendoza v. Reyes and CA common fund, whether the acquisition be
GR No. L-31618, August 17, 1983 for partnership, or for only one of the
Gutierrez, Jr., J. spouses is part of the conjugal partnership
property (CC 153)
Review on certiorari of CA decision All debts and obligations contracted by the
husband and wife for the benefit of the
Facts: conjugal partnership are liabilities of the
1915: Ponciano and Julia Reyes married partnership (CC 161)
1947: 2 parcels of land were bought from All property of marriage is presumed to
JM Tuason & Co. on installment basis belong to the conjugal partnership, unless
o Always no money so borrow from it is proved that it pertains exclusively to
Rehabilitation Finance Corp the husband or to the wife (CC 160)
(RFC)
1948: Spouses jointly obtained loan of Petitions for review on certiorari are denied for lack
P12,000 from RFC “to complete of merit. Judgment of CA affirmed.
construction of one-storey residential
building in QC”
1952: Spouses secured additional loan of Ros and Aguete v. PNB
P8,000 “to pay balance of the lot herein GR No. 170166, April 6, 2011
offered as additional security and to defray Carpio, J.
the expenses incurred in the repairs of the
building” Petition for review of CA decision
Spouses were able to build a house and
later on a camarin/chapel as promised to Facts:
RFC 1954: Joe Ros and Estrella Aguete
o Camarin leased to school, later to married
the Spouses Mendoza who 1968: Spouses acquired parcel of land in
converted it to a movie house Laoag
o Received good rentals for the 1974: Husband mortgaged land for a loan
building, but failed to pay of P115,000 from PNB
seasonably their obligations to the o Loan remained outstanding upon
RFC (became DBP) for extension maturity so PNB executed
of 5 years extrajudicial foreclosure
1961: Wife sold 2 parcels of land while her proceedings, selling the land to
husband was absent attending his farm in the highest bidder, PNB Laoag
Pampanga. They were living separately 1978: Land was not redeemed within 1
and not in speaking terms. year so the property was registered under
Ponciano filed complaint with CFI Rizal for PNB
the annulment of a DoS of 2 parcels of 1983: Spouses filed complaint for the
land with improvements, executed by his annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage
wife as vendor, and Spouses Mendoza as (REM) and all legal proceedings against
vendees. PNB before CFI Ilocos Norte
o Wife claimed she had no additional working capital of buy
knowledge of the loan obtained and sell of garlic and virginia
by her husband nor she tobacco”
consented to the mortgage on the Part of “obligations for
conjugal property the benefit of the
o Signature affixed on the conjugal partnership”
documents was forged o Benefit to the family is apparent at
o The loan did not redound to the the signing of the contract
benefit of the family o No actual benefit has to be
2001: RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner proved, immaterial WoN business
spouses, wife did not sign the document, fails/succeeds
so husband couldn’t encumber any real
property of the conjugal partnership Petition denied. CA decision is affirmed.
without his wife’s consent. Deed of REM
declared NAV.
2005: CA reversed RTC, granted PNB’s G.R. No. 100728 June 18, 1992
appeal. RTC concluded forgery without
adequate proof. Even if wife didn’t give WILHELMINA JOVELLANOS, MERCY
consent, loan still redounded to the benefit JOVELLANOS-MARTINEZ and JOSE HERMILO
of the family since records revealed it was JOVELLANOS, petitioners,
used for expansion of the family’s vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, and ANNETTE H.
business. Debt is chargeable against the JOVELLANOS, respondents.
conjugal partnership.
FACTS: Daniel Jovellanos and Philamlife entered
Issue: WoN loan obtained by the husband into a lease and conditional sale agreement of a
redounded to the benefit of the family property. At that time, Daniel Jovellanos was still
married to Leonor Dizon, with whom he had three
Held: Yes, the loan redounded to the benefit of the children, the petitioners herein. Leonor Dizon died
family and must be chargeable to the conjugal on January 2, 1959. On May 30, 1967, Daniel
partnership. married private respondent Annette H. Jovellanos.
CC was applicable law at the time of the
marriage, so property is considered part of On December 18, 1971, petitioner Mercy
CPG. Jovellanos (daughter from the first wife) and her
Not disputed that property was acquired husband built a house on the back portion of the
during marriage premises. On January 8, 1975, with the lease
Husband cannot alienate or encumber any amounts having been paid, Philamlife executed to
conjugal real property without the Daniel Jovellanos a deed of absolute sale and, on
express/implied consent of the wife. the next day, the latter donated to herein
o CC 173 allows wife to question petitioners (children from 1st wife) the lot and
husband’s encumbrance of the bungalow. On September 8, 1985, Daniel
property, but court will not Jovellanos died.
guarantee that contract will be
Second wife (respondent) Annette H. Jovellanos
voidable.
claimed that the property was acquired by Daniel
o In present case, we follow CA’s
while their marriage was still subsisting, by virtue of
conclusion that the wife gave her
the deed of absolute sale dated January 8, 1975,
consent
and thus formed part of the conjugal partnership of
Mere denial cannot
the second marriage. Petitioners, on the other
disprove the execution of
hand, contend that the property was acquired by
a notarized document
their parents during the existence of the first
Husband admitted to
marriage under their lease and conditional sale
forging wife’s signature
agreement with Philamlife of September 2, 1955.
Debts contracted by the husband for and
in the exercise of the industry or ISSUE: Whether the property belongs to the
profession by which he contributes to the conjugal partnership of the first or the second
support of the family cannot be deemed to marriage
be his exclusive and private debts.
o Application for loan shows that it HELD: The property belongs to the second
would be used exclusively “for marriage.
The contract entered into by Daniel and Philamlife Lita, and husband Felix Rio Tarrosa, petitioners
is specifically denominated as a "Lease and herein. The Deed of Sale dated January 12, 1974
Conditional Sale Agreement" with a lease period of (Deed of Sale) did not bear the written consent and
twenty years. During the twenty-year period, Daniel signature of Anita. On February 29, 1996,
had only the right of possession over the Bonifacio died.
property. The lessor transfers merely the
temporary use and enjoyment of the thing Three months later, the Tarrosas registered the
leased. Generally, ownership is transferred upon Deed of Sale. Danilo and Vilma (children of
delivery, however, the ownership may still be with Bonifacio) filed a Notice of Adverse Claim before
the seller until full payment of the price is made, if the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to protect
there is stipulation to this effect. their rights over the subject property, as well as, a
reconveyance suit.
His monthly payments were made in the concept of
rentals, but with the agreement that if he faithfully ISSUE: Whether or not the land purchased
complied with all the stipulations in the contract the belongs to the conjugal property
same would in effect be considered as amortization
payments to be applied to the predetermined price HELD: The subject property is the conjugal
of the said property. He consequently acquired property of Bonifacio and Anita.
ownership thereof only upon full payment of the
said amount. Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that all
property of the marriage is presumed to belong to
The law recognizes in the owner the right to enjoy the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it
and dispose of a thing, without other limitations pertains exclusively to the husband or the
than those established by law, and, under the wife. For the presumption to arise, it is not even
contract, Daniel Jovellanos evidently did not necessary to prove that the property was acquired
possess or enjoy such rights of ownership. The with funds of the partnership. Only proof of
deed of absolute sale was executed in 1975 by acquisition during the marriage is needed to raise
Philamlife, only after full payment of the rentals. the presumption that the property is conjugal. In
Upon the execution of said deed of absolute sale, the case at bar, the title to the property in question
full ownership was vested in Daniel Jovellanos. only passed to Bonifacio after he had fully paid the
Since. as early as 1967, he was already married to purchase price on June 22, 1970. This full
Annette H. Jovellanos, this property necessarily payment was made more than two (2) years after
belonged to his conjugal partnership with his said his marriage to Anita. Since, the property was
second wife. acquired during the existence of the marriage, the
ownership is presumed to belong to the conjugal
The lower courts correctly ordered that partnership.
reimbursements should be made to the children of
the first marriage in line with the pertinent provision Petitioners’ argument that the disputed lot was
of Article 118 of the Family Code that "any amount Bonifacio’s exclusive property, since it was
advanced by the partnership or by either or both registered solely in his name, is untenable. The
spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or mere registration of a property in the name of one
owners upon liquidation of the partnership." spouse does not destroy its conjugal nature. What
is material is the time when the property was
G.R. No. 185063 July 23, 2009 acquired.
SPS. LITA DE LEON and FELIX RIO TARROSA, The Civil Code is very explicit on the consequence
petitioners, of the husband alienating or encumbering any real
vs. property of the conjugal partnership without the
ANITA B. DE LEON, DANILO B. DE LEON, and wife’s consent. The sale by the husband of
VILMA B. DELEON, respondents. property belonging to the conjugal partnership
without the consent of the wife is void ab initio,
FACTS: On July 20, 1965, Bonifacio O. De Leon, absent any showing that the latter is incapacitated,
then single, and PHHC entered into a Conditional under civil interdiction, or like causes.
Contract to Sell for the purchase of a lot. On April
24, 1968, Bonifacio married Anita de Leon. The sale of one-half of the conjugal property
Following the full payment of the cost price for the without liquidation of the partnership is void. Prior
lot, PHHC executed, on June 22, 1970, a Final to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the
Deed of Sale in favor of Bonifacio. Subsequently, interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is
Bonifacio, for PhP 19,000, sold the lot to his sister, inchoate, a mere expectancy. Therefore, even on
the supposition that Bonifacio only sold his portion RESPONDENT’S VERSION: There was a valid
of the conjugal partnership, the sale is still contract of sale. He alleged that the respondents
theoretically void, for the right of the husband or sold the subject property to him after he refused
the wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not their offer to mortgage the subject property
vest until the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. because they lacked paying capacity. The sale was
with the implied promise to repurchase within one
As a matter of fairness and equity, the share of year,[13] during which period (from May 1, 1992 to
Bonifacio after the liquidation of the partnership April 30, 1993), the respondents would lease the
should be liable to reimburse the amount paid by subject property for a monthly rental of P500.00.
the Tarrosas. It is a well-settled principle that no When the respondents failed to repurchase the
person should unjustly enrich himself at the subject property within the one-year period despite
expense of another. notice, he caused the transfer of title in his name
on July 14, 1993. He then filed an ejectment case
G.R. No. 156125 August 25, 2010 against them sixteen days before the filing of the
RTC case for annulment of the deed of absolute
FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., petitioner, sale.
vs.
ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO In the RTC, the spouses presented the results of
CARLOS, respondents. the scientific examination showing that their
signatures were forgeries.
FACTS: The residential lot in question was
previously in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married PETITIONERS’ VERSION: They introduced
to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On April 6, 1989, evidence on the paraphernal nature of the subject
Eliseo mortgaged the property, with Erlinda’s property since it was registered in Erlinda’s name;
consent, to GSIS. the residential lot was part of land owned Erlinda’s
parents.
A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Erlinda
to Francisco (petitioner) on April 30, 1992 for ISSUE: (1) whether the subject property is
consideration of P602,000.00. On September 24, paraphernal or conjugal; and, (2) whether the
1993, the spouses filed a complaint for the contract between the parties was a sale or an
nullification of the deed of absolute sale, claiming equitable mortgage.
that there was no sale but only a mortgage
transaction. The Ramirez spouses alleged that HELD: As a general rule, all property acquired
Francisco granted them a P600,000.00 loan, to be during the marriage, whether the acquisition
secured by a mortgage on the property. Francisco appears to have been made, contracted or
gave Erlinda a P200,000.00 advance to cancel the registered in the name of one or both spouses, is
GSIS mortgage, and made her sign a document presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is
purporting to be the mortgage contract. Francisco proved.
promised to give the P402,000.00 balance when
Erlinda surrenders TCT No. 1427 with the GSIS In the present case, clear evidence that Erlinda
mortgage cancelled, and submits an affidavit inherited the residential lot from her father has
signed by Eliseo stating that he waives all his rights sufficiently rebutted this presumption of conjugal
to the subject property. With the P200,000.00 ownership. Properties acquired by gratuitous title
advance, Erlinda paid GSIS P176,445.27 to cancel by either spouse, during the marriage, shall be
the GSIS mortgage and subsequently, Erlinda excluded from the community property and be the
surrendered to Francisco the clean TCT No. 1427, exclusive property of each spouse.The residential
but returned Eliseo’s affidavit, unsigned. Since lot, therefore, is Erlinda’s exclusive paraphernal
Eliseo’s affidavit was unsigned, the petitioner property.
refused to give the P402,000.00 balance and to
cancel the mortgage, and demanded that Erlinda In the present case, we find that Eliseo paid a
return the P200,000.00 advance. Since Erlinda portion only of the GSIS loan through monthly
could not return the P200,000.00 advance because salary deductions. Considering the P136,500.00
it had been used to pay the GSIS loan, Francisco amount of the GSIS housing loan, it is fairly
kept the title; and in 1993, the spouses discovered reasonable to assume that the value of the
that TCT No. 7650 had been issued in the residential lot is considerably more than
petitioner’s name, cancelling TCT No.1427 in their theP60,755.76 amount paid by Eliseo through
name. monthly salary deductions. Thus, the subject
property remained the exclusive paraphernal
property of Erlinda at the time she contracted with
the petitioner; the written consent of Eliseo to the
transaction was not necessary. The NBI finding
that Eliseo’s signatures in the special power of
attorney and affidavit were forgeries was
immaterial.