You are on page 1of 11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

THIRDDIVISION
[G.R.No.137650.April12,2000]

GUILLERMATUMLOS,petitioner,vs.SPOUSESMARIOFERNANDEZand
LOURDESFERNANDEZ,respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
UnderArticle148oftheFamilyCode,amanandawomanwhoarenotlegallycapacitatedto
marryeachother,butwhononethelesslivetogetherconjugally,maybedeemedcoownersofa
propertyacquiredduringthecohabitationonlyuponproofthateachmadeanactualcontribution
toitsacquisition.Hence,merecohabitationwithoutproofofcontributionwillnotresultinaco
ownership.
TheCase
BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,assailingtheNovember
19,1998DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals[1](CA),whichreversedtheOctober7,1997Orderof
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC).[2]ThedispositivepartoftheCADecisionreads:Juris
"WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED,andthequestionedordersof
thecourtaquodatedOctober7,1997andNovember11,1997,arehereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.ThejudgmentofthecourtaquodatedJune5,
1997isherebyREINSTATED.Costsagainsttheprivaterespondents."[3]
TheassailedOrderoftheRTCdisposedasfollows:Suprema
"Wherefore,thedecisionofthisCourtrenderedonJune5,1997affirmingintoto
theappealedjudgmentofthe[MTC]isherebyreconsideredandanewoneis
enteredreversingsaiddecisionofthe[MTC]anddismissingthecomplaintinthe
aboveentitledcase."[4]
PetitioneralsoassailstheFebruary14,1999CAResolutiondenyingtheMotionfor
Reconsideration.
TheFacts
TheCourtofAppealsnarratesthefactsasfollows:
"[Hereinrespondents]weretheplaintiffsinCivilCaseNo.6756,anactionfor
ejectmentfiledbeforeBranch82oftheMTCofValenzuela,MetroManilaagainst
[hereinPetitioner]GuillermaTumlos,TotoTumlos,andGinaTumlos.Intheir
complaintdatedJuly5,1996,thesaidspousesallegedthattheyaretheabsolute
ownersofanapartmentbuildinglocatedatARTESUBDIVISIONIII,LawangBato,
Valenzuela,MetroManilathatthroughtolerancetheyhadallowedthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

1/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

defendantsprivaterespondentstooccupytheapartmentbuildingforthelast
seven(7)years,since1989,withoutthepaymentofanyrentthatitwasagreed
uponthatafterafewmonths,defendantGuillermaTumloswillpayP1,600.00a
monthwhiletheotherdefendantspromisedtopayP1,000.00amonth,bothas
rental,whichagreementwasnotcompliedwithbythesaiddefendantsthatthey
havedemandedseveraltimes[that]thedefendantsxxxvacatethepremises,as
theyareinneedofthepropertyfortheconstructionofanewbuildingandthat
theyhavealsodemandedpaymentofP84,000.00fromTotoandGinaTumlos
representingrentalsforseven(7)yearsandpaymentofP143,600.00from
GuillermaTumlosasunpaidrentalsforseven(7)years,butthesaiddemands
wentunheeded.Theythenprayedthatthedefendantsbeorderedtovacatethe
propertyinquestionandtopaythestatedunpaidrentals,aswellastojointlypay
P30,000.00inattorneysfees.
"[Petitioner]GuillermaTumloswastheonlyonewhofiledananswertothe
complaint.SheaverredthereinthattheFernandezspouseshadnocauseof
actionagainsther,sincesheisacoownerofthesubjectpremisesasevidenced
byaContracttoSellwhereinitwasstatedthatsheisacovendeeoftheproperty
inquestiontogetherwith[Respondent]MarioFernandez.Shethenaskedforthe
dismissalofthecomplaint.
"AfteranunfruitfulpreliminaryconferenceonNovember15,1996,theMTC
requiredthepartiestosubmittheiraffidavitsandotherevidenceonthefactual
issuesdefinedintheirpleadingswithinten(10)daysfromreceiptofsuchorder,
pursuanttosection9oftheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure.[Petitioner]
GuillermaTumlossubmittedheraffidavit/positionpaperonNovember29,1996,
whilethe[respondents]filedtheirpositionpaperonDecember5,1996,attaching
theretotheirmarriagecontract,lettersofdemandtothedefendants,andthe
ContracttoSelloverthedisputedproperty.TheMTCthereafterpromulgatedits
judgmentonJanuary22,1997[.]Scsdaad
xxxxxxxxx
"Uponappealtothe[RTC],[petitionerandthetwoother]defendantsallegedin
theirmemorandumonappealthat[Respondent]MarioFernandezand[Petitioner]
Guillermahadanamorousrelationship,andthattheyacquiredthepropertyin
questionastheirlovenest.Itwasfurtherallegedthattheylivedtogetherinthe
saidapartmentbuildingwiththeirtwo(2)childrenforaroundten(10)years,and
thatGuillermaadministeredthepropertybycollectingrentalsfromthelesseesof
theotherapartments,untilshediscoveredthat[RespondentMario]deceivedher
astotheannulmentofhismarriage.Itwasalsoduringtheearlypartof1996
when[RespondentMario]accusedherofbeingunfaithfulanddemonstratedhis
baseless[jealousy].
"Inthesamememorandum,[petitionerandthetwoother]defendantsfurther
averredthatitwasonlyrecentlythatTotoTumloswastemporarilyaccommodated
inoneoftheroomsofthesubjectpremiseswhileGinaTumlosactedasananny
forthechildren.Inshort,theirpresencethere[was]onlytransientandthey[were]
nottenantsoftheFernandezspouses.
"OnJune5,1997,the[RTC]renderedadecisionaffirmingintotothejudgmentof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

2/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

theMTC.Sdaad
"The[petitionerandthetwootherdefendants]seasonablyfiledamotionfor
reconsiderationonJuly3,1997,allegingthatthedecisionofaffirmancebythe
RTCwasconstitutionallyflawedforfailingtopointoutdistinctlyandclearlythe
findingsoffactsandlawonwhichitwasbasedvisvisthestatementsofissues
theyhaveraisedintheirmemorandumonappeal.Theyalsoaverredthatthe
ContracttoSellpresentedbytheplaintiffswhichnamedthebuyerasMarioP.
Fernandez,oflegalage,marriedtoLourdesP.Fernandez,shouldnotbegiven
credenceasitwasfalsifiedtoappearthatway.Accordingtothem,theContractto
SelloriginallynamedGuillermaFernandezasthespouseof[RespondentMario].
Asfoundbythe[RTC]initsjudgment,anewContracttoSellwasissuedbythe
sellersnamingthe[respondents]asthebuyersafterthelatterpresentedtheir
marriagecontractandrequestedachangeinthenameofthevendeewife.Such
factsnecessitatetheconclusionthatGuillermawasreallyacoownerthereof,and
thatthe[respondents]manipulatedtheevidenceinordertodepriveherofher
rightstoenjoyandusethepropertyasrecognizedbylaw.Sdaamiso
xxxxxxxxx
"The[RTC],indeterminingthequestionofownershipinordertoresolvetheissue
ofpossession,ruledthereinthattheContracttoSellsubmittedbytheFernandez
spousesappearednottobeauthentic,astherewasanalterationinthenameof
thewifeof[Respondent]MarioFernandez.Hence,thecontractpresentedbythe
[respondents]cannotbegivenanyweight.ThecourtfurtherruledthatGuillerma
and[RespondentMario]acquiredthepropertyduringtheircohabitationas
husbandandwife,althoughwithoutthebenefitofmarriage.Fromsuchfindings,
thecourtconcludedthat[Petitioner]GuillermaTumloswasacoownerofthe
subjectpropertyandcouldnotbeejectedtherefrom.
"The[respondents]thenfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheorderofreversal,
butthesamewasdeniedbythe[RTC]."[5]
Asearlierstated,theCAreversedtheRTC.Hence,thisPetitionfiledbyGuillermaTumlosonly.
[6]

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
TheCArejectedpetitionersclaimthatsheandRespondentMarioFernandezwerecoowners
ofthedisputedproperty.TheCAruled:Scncm
"Fromtheinceptionoftheinstantcase,theonlydefensepresentedbyprivate
respondentGuillermaisherrightasacoownerofthesubjectproperty[.]
xxxxxxxxx
ThisclaimofcoownershipwasnotsatisfactorilyprovenbyGuillerma,ascorrectly
heldbythetrialcourt.Nootherevidencewaspresentedtovalidatesuchclaim,
exceptforthesaidaffidavit/positionpaper.Aspreviouslystated,itwasonlyon
appealthatGuillermaallegedthatshecohabitedwiththepetitionerhusband
withoutthebenefitofmarriage,andthatsheborehimtwo(2)children.Attached
tohermemorandumonappealarethebirthcertificatesofthesaidchildren.Such
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

3/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

contentionsanddocumentsshouldnothavebeenconsideredbythexxx(RTC),
astheywerenotpresentedinheraffidavit/positionpaperbeforethetrialcourt
(MTC).
xxxxxxxxx
"However,evenifthesaidallegationsanddocumentscouldbeconsidered,the
claimofcoownershipmuststillfail.As[hereinRespondent]MarioFernandezis
validlymarriedto[Respondent]LourdesFernandez(asperMarriageContract
datedApril27,1968,p.45,OriginalRecord),GuillermaandMarioarenot
capacitatedtomarryeachother.Thus,thepropertyrelationsgoverningtheir
supposedcohabitationisthatfoundinArticle148ofExecutiveOrderNo.209,as
amended,otherwiseknownastheFamilyCodeofthePhilippines[.]
xxxxxxxxx
"Itisclearthatactualcontributionisrequiredbythisprovision,incontrastto
Article147oftheFamilyCodewhichstatesthateffortsinthecareand
maintenanceofthefamilyandhouseholdareregardedascontributionstothe
acquisitionofcommonpropertybyonewhohasnosalaryorincomeorworkor
industry(Agapayv.Palang,276SCRA340).Thecaregivenbyoneparty[to]the
home,children,andhousehold,orspiritualormoralinspirationprovidedtothe
other,isnotincludedinArticle148(HandbookontheFamilyCodeofthe
PhilippinesbyAliciaV.SempioDiy,1988ed.,p.209).Hence,ifactual
contributionofthepartyisnotproved,therewillbenocoownershipandno
presumptionofequalshares(Agapay,supraatp.348,citingCommentariesand
JurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesVolumeIbyArturoM.
Tolentino,1990ed.,p.500).
"Intheinstantcase,noproofofactualcontributionbyGuillermaTumlosinthe
purchaseofthesubjectpropertywaspresented.Heronlyevidencewasherbeing
namedintheContracttoSellasthewifeof[Respondent]MarioFernandez.Since
shefailedtoprovethatshecontributedmoneytothepurchasepriceofthe
subjectapartmentbuilding,Wefindnobasistojustifyhercoownershipwith
[RespondentMario].Thesaidpropertyisthuspresumedtobelongtotheconjugal
partnershippropertyofMarioandLourdesFernandez,itbeingacquiredduring
thesubsistenceoftheirmarriageandtherebeingnootherprooftothecontrary
(pleaseseeArticle116oftheFamilyCode).
"Thecourtaquo(RTC)alsofoundthat[RespondentMario]hastwo(2)children
withGuillermawhoareinhercustody,andthattoejectthemfromtheapartment
buildingwouldbetoruncounterwiththeobligationoftheformertogivesupport
tohisminorillegitimatechildren,whichindispensablyincludesdwelling.As
previouslydiscussed,suchfindinghasnolegtostandon,itbeingbasedon
evidencepresentedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Ncmmis
xxxxxxxxx
"Evenassumingarguendothatthesaidevidencewasvalidlypresented,theRTC
failedtoconsiderthattheneedforsupportcannotbepresumed.Article203ofthe
FamilyCodeexpresslyprovidesthattheobligationtogivesupportshallbe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

4/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

demandablefromthetimethepersonwhohasarighttoreceivethesameneeds
itformaintenance,butitshallnotbepaidexceptfromthedateofjudicialor
extrajudicialdemand.xxx.Ncm
"IncontrasttotheclearpronouncementoftheSupremeCourt,theRTCinstead
presumedthatGuillermaandherchildrenneededsupportfrom[Respondent
Mario].Worse,itreliedonevidencenotproperlypresentedbeforethetrialcourt
(MTC).
"Withregardtotheother[defendants],GinaandTotoTumlos,acloseperusalof
therecordsshowsthattheydidnotfileanyresponsivepleading.Hence,judgment
mayberenderedagainstthemasmaybewarrantedbythefactsallegedinthe
complaintandlimitedtowhatisprayedfortherein,asprovidedforinSection6of
theRevisedRulesonSummaryProcedure.Therewasnobasisforthepublic
respondenttodismissthecomplaintagainstthem."[7](emphasisintheoriginal)Ol
dmiso

TheIssues
InherMemorandum,petitionersubmitsthefollowingissuesfortheconsiderationoftheCourt:
"I.TheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredandabuseditsdiscretioninnotoutrightly
dismissingthepetitionforreviewfiledbyrespondents.
"II.TheCourtofAppealserredinfindingthatpetitionerisnotthecoownerofthe
propertyinlitis.
"III.Corollarythereto,theCourtofAppealserredinapplyingArt.148oftheFamily
Codeinthecaseatbar.Manikan
"IV.TheCourtofAppealserredindisregardingthesubstantiverightofsupport
visvistheremedyofejectmentresortedtobyrespondents."[8]
Inresolvingthiscase,weshallanswertwoquestions:(a)Isthepetitioneracoownerofthe
property?(b)Cantheclaimforsupportbarthisejectmentsuit?Weshallalsodiscussthese
preliminarymatters:(a)whethertheCAwasbiasedinfavorofrespondentsand(b)whetherthe
MTChadjurisdictionovertheejectmentsuit.Maniks
TheCourtsRuling
ThePetitionhasnomerit.
PreliminaryMatters
PetitionersubmitsthattheCAexhibitedpartialityinfavorofhereinrespondents.Thisbias,she
argues,ismanifestinthefollowing:Manikx
1.TheCAconsideredtherespondentsPetitionforReview[9]despitetheirfailuretoattach
severalpleadingsaswellastheexplanationfortheproofofservice,despitetheclearmandate
ofSection11[10]ofRule13oftheRevisedRulesofCourtanddespitetherulinginSolarTeam
Entertainment,Inc.v.Ricafort.[11]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

5/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

2.Itallowedrespondentstosubmitthepleadingsthatwerenotattached.
3.ItconsideredrespondentsReplydatedMay20,1998,whichhadallegedlybeenfiledoutof
time.Nexold
4.Itdeclaredthatthecasewassubmittedfordecisionwithoutfirstdeterminingwhethertogive
duecoursetothePetition,pursuanttoSection6,Rule42oftheRulesofCourt.[12]
TheCA,foritspart,succinctlydismissedtheseargumentsinthiswise:Miso
"Itistoolateinthedaynowtoquestiontheallegedproceduralerrorafterwehave
renderedthedecision.Moreimportantly,whentheprivaterespondentfiledtheir
commenttothepetitiononApril26,1998,theyfailedtoquestionsuchalleged
proceduralerror.Neitherhavetheyquestionedalltheresolutionsissuedbythe
Courtaftertheirfilingofsuchcomment.Theyshould,therefore,benow
consideredinestoppeltoquestionthesame."[13]
Weagreewiththeappellatecourt.PetitionerneverraisedthesemattersbeforetheCA.She
cannotbeallowednowtochallengeitsDecisionongroundsofallegedtechnicalitiesbeing
belatedlyraisedasanafterthought.Inthislight,shecannotinvokeSolar[14]becauseshenever
raisedthisissuebeforetheCA.Sppedjo
Moreimportant,wefinditquitesanctimoniousindeedonpetitionersparttorely,ontheone
hand,ontheseproceduraltechnicalitiestoovercometheappealedDecisionand,ontheother
hand,assertthattheRTCmayconsiderthenewevidenceshepresentedforthefirsttimeon
appeal.Suchposturingonlybetraysthefutilityofpetitionersassertion,ifnotitsabsenceof
merit.
Oneotherpreliminarymatter.Petitionerimpliesthatthecourtoforigin,theMunicipalTrialCourt
(MTC),didnothavejurisdictionoverthe"natureofthecase,"allegingthattherealquestion
involvedisoneofownership.Sincetheissueofpossessioncannotbesettledwithoutpassing
uponthatofownership,shemaintainsthattheMTCshouldhavedismissedthecase.Jospped
Thiscontentioniserroneous.TheissueofownershipmaybepasseduponbytheMTCtosettle
theissueofpossession.[15]Suchdisposition,however,isnotfinalinsofarastheissueof
ownershipisconcerned,[16]whichmaybethesubjectofanotherproceedingbroughtspecifically
tosettlethatquestion.
Havingresolvedthesepreliminarymatters,wenowmoveontopetitionerssubstantive
contentions.Spped
FirstIssue:PetitionerasCoowner
Petitionerscentraltheoryandmaindefenseagainstrespondentsactionforejectmentisher
claimofcoownershipoverthepropertywithRespondentMarioFernandez.Atthefirstinstance
beforetheMTC,shepresentedaContracttoSellindicatingthatshewashisspouse.TheMTC
foundthisdocumentinsufficienttosupportherclaim.TheRTC,however,afterconsideringher
allegationthatshehadbeencohabitingwithMarioFernandezasshownbyevidencepresented
beforeit,[17]ruledinherfavor.Misspped
Ontheotherhand,theCAheldthatthepiecesofevidenceadducedbeforetheRTCcouldno
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

6/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

longerbeconsideredbecausetheyhadnotbeensubmittedbeforetheMTC.Hence,the
appellatecourtconcludedthat"[t]heclaimofcoownershipwasnotsatisfactorilyprovenxxx."
[18]

WeagreewiththepetitionerthattheRTCdidnoterrinconsideringtheevidencepresented
beforeit.Nonetheless,werejectherclaimthatshewasacoownerofthedisputedproperty.
Missc

EvidencePresentedonAppealBeforetheRTC
InrulingthattheRTCerredinconsideringonappealtheevidencepresentedbypetitioner,the
CAreliedonthedoctrinethatissuesnotraisedduringtrialcouldnotbeconsideredforthefirst
timeduringappeal.[19]
Wedisagree.Inthefirstplace,therewerenonewmattersorissuesbelatedlyraisedduringthe
appealbeforetheRTC.Thedefenseinvokedbypetitionerattheverystartwasthatshewasa
coowner.Tosupportherclaim,shepresentedaContracttoSelldatedNovember14,1986,
whichstatedthatMarioFernandezwaslegallymarriedtoher.Theallegationthatshewas
cohabitingwithhimwasamereelaborationofherinitialtheory.
Inthesecondplace,proceduralrulesaregenerallypremisedonconsiderationsoffairplay.
RespondentsneverobjectedwhentheassailedevidencewaspresentedbeforetheRTC.Thus,
theycannotclaimunfairsurpriseorprejudice.Scmis
PetitionerNotaCoOwnerUnderArticle144oftheCivilCode
EvenconsideringtheevidencepresentedbeforetheMTCandtheRTC,wecannotaccept
petitionerssubmissionthatsheisacoownerofthedisputedpropertypursuanttoArticle144of
theCivilCode.[20]AscorrectlyheldbytheCA,theapplicablelawisnotArticle144oftheCivil
Code,butArticle148oftheFamilyCodewhichprovides:
"Art.148.IncasesofcohabitationnotfallingundertheprecedingArticle,[21]only
thepropertiesacquiredbybothofthepartiesthroughtheiractualjointcontribution
ofmoney,property,orindustryshallbeownedbythemincommoninproportion
totheirrespectivecontributions.Intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,their
contributionsandcorrespondingsharesarepresumedtobeequal.Thesamerule
andpresumptionshallapplytojointdepositsofmoneyandevidencesofcredit.
"Ifoneofthepartiesisvalidlymarriedtoanother,hisorhershareintheco
ownershipshallaccruetotheabsolutecommunityorconjugalpartnershipexisting
insuchvalidmarriage.Ifthepartywhoactedinbadfaithisnotvalidlymarriedto
another,hisorhershareshallbeforfeitedinthemannerprovidedinthelast
paragraphoftheprecedingArticle.
"Theforegoingrulesonforfeitureshalllikewiseapplyevenifbothpartiesarein
badfaith."Sc
Article144oftheCivilCodeappliesonlytoarelationshipbetweenamanandawomanwho
arenotincapacitatedtomarryeachother,[22]ortooneinwhichthemarriageofthepartiesis
void[23]fromthebeginning.[24]Itdoesnotapplytoacohabitationthatamountstoadulteryor
concubinage,foritwouldbeabsurdtocreateacoownershipwherethereexistsaprior
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

7/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

conjugalpartnershiporabsolutecommunitybetweenthemanandhislawfulwife.[25]
Basedonevidencepresentedbyrespondents,aswellasthosesubmittedbypetitionerherself
beforetheRTC,itisclearthatMarioFernandezwasincapacitatedtomarrypetitionerbecause
hewaslegallymarriedtoLourdesFernandez.Itisalsoclearthat,asreadilyadmittedby
petitioner,shecohabitedwithMarioinastateofconcubinage.Therefore,Article144oftheCivil
Codeisinapplicable.
Asstatedabove,therelationshipbetweenpetitionerandRespondentMarioFernandezis
governedbyArticle148oftheFamilyCode.JusticeAliciaV.SempioDiypointsout[26]that"
[t]heFamilyCodehasfilledthehiatusinArticle144oftheCivilCodebyexpresslyregulatingin
itsArticle148thepropertyrelationsofcoupleslivinginastateofadulteryorconcubinage."xsc
Hence,petitionersargumentthattheFamilyCodeisinapplicablebecausethecohabitation
andtheacquisitionofthepropertyoccurredbeforeitseffectivitydeservesscant
consideration.Sufficeittosaythatthelawitselfstatesthatitcanbeappliedretroactivelyifit
doesnotprejudicevestedoracquiredrights.[27]Inthiscase,petitionerfailedtoshowany
vestedrightoverthepropertyinquestion.Moreover,toresolvesimilarissues,wehaveapplied
Article148oftheFamilyCoderetroactively.[28]
NoEvidenceofActualJointContribution
Anotherconsiderationmilitatesagainstpetitionersclaimthatsheisacoowneroftheproperty.
InAgapay,[29]theCourtruled:
"UnderArticle148,onlythepropertiesacquiredbybothofthepartiesthrough
theiractualjointcontributionofmoney,propertyorindustryshallbeownedby
themincommoninproportiontotheirrespectivecontributions.Itmustbe
stressedthattheactualcontributionisrequiredbythisprovision,incontrastto
Article147whichstatesthateffortsinthecareandmaintenanceofthefamilyand
household,areregardedascontributionstotheacquisitionofcommonproperty
byonewhohasnosalaryorincomeorworkorindustry.Iftheactualcontribution
ofthepartyisnotproved,therewillbenocoownershipandnopresumptionof
equalshares."(emphasisours)xlaw
Inthiscase,petitionerfailstopresentanyevidencethatshehadmadeanactualcontributionto
purchasethesubjectproperty.Indeed,sheanchorsherclaimofcoownershipmerelyonher
cohabitationwithRespondentMarioFernandez.
Likewise,herclaimofhavingadministeredthepropertyduringthecohabitationis
unsubstantiated.Inanyevent,thisfactbyitselfdoesnotjustifyherclaim,fornothinginArticle
148oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthattheadministrationofthepropertyamountstoa
contributioninitsacquisition.
Clearly,thereisnobasisforpetitionersclaimofcoownership.Thepropertyinquestion
belongstotheconjugalpartnershipofrespondents.Hence,theMTCandtheCAwerecorrect
inorderingtheejectmentofpetitionerfromthepremises.Sclex
SecondIssue:SupportversusEjectment
PetitionercontendsthatsinceRespondentMarioFernandezfailedtorepudiateherclaim
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

8/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

regardingthefiliationofhisallegedsons,MarkGilandMichaelFernandez,hissilenceonthe
matteramountstoanadmission.ArguingthatMarioisliableforsupport,sheadvancesthe
theorythatthechildrensrighttosupport,whichnecessarilyincludesshelter,prevailsoverthe
rightofrespondentstoejecther.
Wedisagree.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisisanejectmentsuitwherebyrespondentsseek
toexercisetheirpossessoryrightovertheirproperty.Itissummaryincharacteranddeals
solelywiththeissueofpossessionofthepropertyindispute.Here,ithasbeenshownthatthey
haveabetterrighttopossessitthandoesthepetitioner,whoserighttopossessisbased
merelyontheirtolerance.Sclaw
Moreover,RespondentMarioFernandezallegedfailuretorepudiatepetitionersclaimoffiliation
isnotrelevanttothepresentcase.Indeed,itwouldbehighlyimproperforustoruleonsuch
issue.Besides,itwasnotproperlytakenupbelow.[30]Inanyevent,Article298[31]oftheCivil
Coderequiresthatthereshouldbeanextrajudicialdemand.[32]Nonewasmadehere.TheCA
wascorrectwhenitsaid:
"Evenassumingarguendothatthesaidevidencewasvalidlypresented,theRTC
failedtoconsiderthattheneedforsupportcannotbepresumed.Article[298]of
the[NewCivilCode]expresslyprovidesthattheobligationtogivesupportshall
bedemandablefromthetimethepersonwhohasarighttoreceivethesame
needitformaintenance,butitshallnotbepaidexceptfromthedateofjudicial
andextrajudicialdemand."[33]
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIEDandtheappealedDecisionAFFIRMED.Costsagainst
petitioner.Rtcspped
SOORDERED.
Melo,(Chairman),Purisima,andGonzagaReyes,JJ.,concur.
Vitug,J.,abroadonofficialbusiness.

[1] FifthDivision.TheDecisionwaswrittenbyJ.DelilahVidallonMagtoliswiththeconcurrenceofJJArtemonD.Luna

(chairman)andRodrigoV.Cosico(member).
[2] IssuedbyJudgeFloroP.Alejo.ThisOrdereffectivelyreversedtheearlierDecisionofJudgeAlejoaffirmingintotothe
MTCsjudgment.
[3] CADecision,p.7rollo,p.37.
[4] Rollo,pp.6768.
[5] CADecision,pp.14rollo,pp.3134.
[6] ThecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononDecember24,1999,uponreceiptbythisCourtofpetitioners
Memorandum,whichwassignedbyAtty.DanteA.Diaz.RespondentsMemorandum,whichwassignedbyAtty.RodolfoP.
Liwanag,wasreceivedonNovember24,1999.
[7] CADecision,pp.47rollo,pp.3437.
[8] PetitionersMemorandum,p.7rollo,p.164.
[9] SeeCAResolutiondatedMarch31,1998.
[10] "Sec.11.Prioritiesinmodesofserviceandfiling.Wheneverpracticable,theserviceandfilingofpleadingsandother
papersshallbedonepersonally.Exceptwithrespecttopapersemanatingfromthecourt,aresorttoothermodesmustbe
accompaniedbyawrittenexplanationwhytheserviceorfilingwasnotdonepersonally.AviolationofthisRulemaybe
causetoconsiderthepaperasnotfiled."
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

9/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

[11] 293SCRA661,August5,1998.
[12] "Sec.6.Duecourse.Ifuponthefilingofthecommentorsuchotherpleadingsasthecourtmayalloworrequire,orafter

theexpirationoftheperiodforthefilingthereofwithoutsuchcommentorpleadinghavingbeensubmitted,theCourtof
Appealsfindsprimafaciethatthelowercourthascommittedanerroroffactorlawthatwillwarrantareversalof
modificationoftheappealeddecision,itmayaccordinglygiveduecoursetothepetition."
[13] CAResolutiondatedFebruary19,1999rollo,pp.4041.
[14] Supra.
[15]

"SEC.33.JurisdictionofMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsinCivil
Cases.
xxxxxxxxx
2)Exclusiveoriginaljurisdictionovercasesofforcibleentryandunlawfuldetainer:Provided,Thatwhen,insuchcases,the
defendantraisesthequestionofownershipinhispleadingsandthequestionofpossessioncannotberesolvedwithout
decidingtheissueofownership,theissueofownershipshallberesolvedonlytodeterminetheissueofpossession"(Sec.33,
B.P.129)
"Sec.16.Resolvingdefenseofownership.Whenthedefendantraisesthedefenseofownershipinhispleadingsandthe
questionofpossessioncannotberesolvedwithoutdecidingtheissueofownership,theissueofownershipshallberesolved
onlytodeterminetheissueofpossession."(Sec.16,Rule70,1997RevisedRulesofCivilProcedure)
[16] Foranextensivediscussionofthesubjectmatter,seeRefugiav.CA,258SCRA347,July5,1996.SeealsoDizonv.CA
264SCRA391,November19,1996.
[17] SeePetitionersMemorandumonAppealrecords,pp.97106.
[18] CADecision,p.5rollo,p.35.
[19] SeeSolidHomes,Inc.v.CA,275SCRA267,July8,1997RomanCatholicArchbishopofManilav.CA,269SCRA
145,March3,1997.
[20] "Art.144[CivilCode].Whenamanandawomanlivetogetherashusbandandwife,buttheyarenotmarried,ortheir
marriageisvoidfromthebeginning,thepropertyacquiredbyeitherorbothofthemthroughtheirworkorindustryortheir
wagesandsalariesshallbegovernedbytherulesoncoownership."(NCC.)
[21]

Article147oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthat"Whenamanandawomanarecapacitatedtomarryeach
other,liveexclusivelywitheachotherashusbandandwifewithoutthebenefitofmarriageorunderavoid
marriage,theirwagesandsalariesshallbeownedbytheminequalsharesandthepropertyacquiredby
bothofthemthroughtheirworkorindustryshallbegovernedbytherulesoncoownership.
"Intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,propertiesacquiredwhiletheylivedtogethershallbepresumedtohavebeen
obtainedbytheirjoinefforts,workorindustryandshallbeownedbytheminequalshares.ForpurposesofthisArticle,a
partywhodidnotparticipateintheacquisitionbytheotherpartyofanypropertyshallbedeemedtohavecontributed
jointlyintheacquisitionthereofiftheformerseffortsconsistedinthecareandmaintenanceofthefamilyandofthe
household."
[22] Juanizav.Jose,89SCRA306,March30,1979.
[23] Agapayv.Palang,276SCRA340,July28,1997.
[24] Vitug,CompendiumofCivilLawandJurisprudence,pp.6869,1993ed.,SempioDiy,HandbookontheFamilyCode
ofthePhilippines,pp.228234,1997ed.SeealsoTolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.I,p.391,1987ed.Cf.
Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.I,p.498,1990ed.
[25] Tolentino,supra.,1987ed.
[26] SempioDiy,supra.atp.228.SeealsoVitug,supra,atpp.210211.
[27] Article256,FamilyCode.
[28] Agapayv.Palang,supra.
[29] Ibid.,at348,perRomero,J.
[30] SeeSolidHomes,Inc.v.CA,supra.RomanCatholicArchbishopofManilav.CA.
[31]

"Art.298.Theobligationtogivesupportshallbedemandablefromthetimethepersonwhohasarighttoreceivethe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

10/11

9/23/2015

TumlosvsFernandez:137650:April12,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

sameneedsitformaintenance,butitshallnotbepaidexceptformthedateitisextrajudiciallydemanded.
Paymentshallbemademonthlyinadvance,andwhentherecipientdies,hisheirsshallnotbeobligedtoreturnwhathehas
receivedinadvance."
ThisprovisionissubstantiallyreproducedinArticle203oftheFamilyCode.
[32] SeeJocsonv.TheEmpireInsuranceCompany,103Phil.580,April30,1958.
[33] CADecision,pp.67rollo,pp.3637.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

11/11