Digest Author: Ish Guidote

Francisco v. Court of Appeals (1998)

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

Petition: Review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Petitioner: Teresita C. Francisco (wife) Respondents: Court of Appeals Eusebio Francisco (husband) Conchita Evangelista + husband Children by Aracelli F. Marilla + husband previous marriage Antonio V. Francisco Ponente: Quisumbing, J. Date: 25 November 1998 Facts:

1. CA erred in applying CC provisions, since FC expressly repealed them

2. Properties in dispute are part of CPG

Eusebio contracted a first marriage and had children (private respondents) Teresita is his legal wife at present She claims that the following properties comprise the CPG: o Sari-sari store o House & lot (Brgy. Balite) o Apartment house o Another house & lot (Brgy. San Isidro) According to Teresita: o Eusebio used to be the administrator of the CPG until he contracted tuberculosis, heart disease, and cancer, rendering him unfit o Private respondents convinced their father to sign a General Power of Attorney transferring administrative control to Conchita Evangelista RTC case and ruling: o Teresita filed for damages, annulment of the GPA, and sought to be declared administratrix of the properties in dispute o HELD: Petitioner failed to show that said properties were acquired during her marriage with Eusebio Case was elevated to CA which affirmed the RTC ruling in toto

Properties were acquired thru inheritance or Eusebios industry prior to his second marriage

a. Land in Brgy. Balite CPG

Eusebio inherited it from his father

SC NO. Invoking the new law will impair vested rights (Art. 256, FC) Rights acquired under regime of CC NO. Presumption of conjugality does not operate unless party is able to prove that properties were acquired during the marriage Petitioner failed to adduce evidence to this effect Presumption of conugality is rebuttable with clear and convincing evidence NO. Since petitioner admitted that Eusebio brought that land into their marriage, it is part of his exclusive property (Art. 148(1), CC) Assuming that he inherited it during their marriage, still exclusive (Art. 148(2), CC) NO. Permits actually show that Eusebio is the owner of the structures NO. No evidence to show that the store was constructed at the expense of the CPG NO. Registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already existing. Acquisition and registration [of title] are 2 different acts married to merely describes civil status NO. Eusebio is not incapacitated to administer the properties Leg injury from bike accident, aggravated by quarrel, did not impair his capacity to administer

b. House + Apartment building permits show that she is the applicant CPG c. She is the licensee of the Sari-sari store CPG

Established by Eusebio during his first marriage

Pertinent provisions: Art. 160, CC: All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Issues/Ruling/Ratio: 1. WoN CA erred in applying CC provisions instead of FC NO. 2. WoN properties in question formed part of CPG NO. 3. WoN petitioner can be declared administratrix NO.

d. Certificate of title for Brgy. San Isidro land (Eusebio Francisco, married to Teresita Francisco) CPG

Purchased by Eusebio during the lifetime of this first wife

3. She should be appointed administratrix insofar as Eusebio is incapacitated

Disposition: Petition dismissed. CA decision affirmed.