You are on page 1of 1

Atienza v de Castro G.R. No. 1695698, Nov.

29, 2006 Facts: Lupo Atienza hired De Castro as accountant for his two corporations (Enrico Shipping Corporation and Eurasian Maritime Corporation) in 1983 Then their relationship became intimate despite Lupo being a married man! They lived together in the later part of 1983. They had 2 children, after the second child they parted ways. Then Lupo filed a complaint against Yolanda for a judicial partition of a land between them in the BelAir subdivision Lupo said Yolanda bought the said property with his own funds Yolanda on the other hand said she bought it with her own funds. Trial Court said that the contested property is owned common by him and Yolanda and ordered the partition into two equal parts. CA reversed the TC! Saying that it was the exclusive property of Yolanda. Issues: WON the disputed property is the exclusive property of Yolanda Held: Yes Ratio: Since they are not capacitated to marry each other in their cohabitation, FC 148 applies. Under this regime only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in proportion to their contributions. Absent of proof of contribution, it shall be presumed to be equal. He did not show any evidence that he contributed in the parcel of land while the accountant showed bank accounts which apparently shows that she was capacitated to buy the said land. Evidence of De Castro: job as accountant and businesswoman engaged in foreign currency trading, money lending, and jewelry retail, promisorry notes of dealings with clients, bank account statements, and business transactions = had financial capacity on the other hand Atienza merely provided evidence that Yolanda had no such sufficient funds and didnt provide for evidence regarding his own capacity to pay for such property.