You are on page 1of 20

IV.

Property Relations Between Husband RTC’s Ruling
and Wife (Arts. 74-148) 1. Declaring the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos
executed by the late Francisco Comille recorded
Donations Between Husband and Wife as Doc. No. 7; Page No. 3; Book No. V; Series of
During Marriage and Common Law Spouses, 1991 in the Notarial Register of Notary Public Vic
Void : T. Lacaya (Annex “A” to the Complaint) null and
void;
1. Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda. De Batocael,
GR No. 146683, November 22, 2001; 370 2. Ordering the defendant to deliver possession of
SCRA 414 the house and lot subject of the deed unto
the plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after finality
Background: Petitioner Cirila Arcaba seeks review of this decision; and finally
on certiorari of the decision of the Court of 3. Ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s fees
Appeals, which affirmed with modification the in the sum of P10,000.00.
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10,
Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte in Civil Case CA’s Ruling:
No. 4593, declaring as void a deed of donation The respondent Cirila appealed to the CA but the
inter vivos executed by the late Francisco T. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence
Comille in her favor and its subsequent resolution this petition.
denying reconsideration.
Issue:
Facts: WON the Court of Appeals correctly applied Art.
After the death of Zosima on October 3, 1980, 87 of the Family Code to the circumstances of this
Francisco and his mother-in-law, Juliana Bustalino case.
Montallana, executed a deed of extrajudicial
partition with waiver of rights, in which the latter SC Ruling
waived her share consisting of one-fourth ( 1/4) of After a review of the records, we rule in the
the property to Francisco. affirmative. The general rule is that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for
On June 27, 1916, Francisco registered the lot in review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
his name with the Registry of Deeds. Having no subject only to certain exceptions: (a) when the
children to take care of him after his retirement, conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
Francisco asked his niece Leticia Bellosillo, the speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (b) when
latter’s cousin, Luzviminda Paghacian, and the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
petitioner Cirila Arcaba, then a widow, to take absurd, or impossible; (c) where there is grave
care of his house, as well as the store inside. abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is
Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when
nature of the relationship between Cirila and the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the
Francisco. Leticia Bellosillo said Francisco and Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
Cirila were lovers since they slept in the same beyond the issues of the case and the same are
room, while Erlinda Tabancura, another niece contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
of Francisco, claimed that the latter had told her appellee; (g) when the findings of the Court of
that Cirila was his mistress. Cirila contested that Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
she just a helper having authority to enter into (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions
Francisco’s room if the latter order he. She denied without citation of specific evidence on which
they ever had sexual intercourse. On January they are based; (i) when the finding of fact of the
24, 1991, a few months before his death, Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
Francisco executed an instrument denominated absence of evidence but is contradicted by the
“Deed of Donation Inter Vivos,” in which he ceded evidence on record; and (j) when the Court of
a portion of Lot 437-A, consisting of 150 square Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
meters, together with his house, to Cirila, who facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
accepted the donation in the same instrument. properly considered, would justify a different
Francisco left the larger portion of 268 square conclusion.
meters in his name. The deed stated that the
donation was being made in consideration of “the The Court of Appeals based its findings on
faithful services [Cirila Arcaba] had rendered over evidence presented by both parties, the general
the past ten (10) years.” The deed was notarized rule should apply. In Bitangcor v. Tan, we held
by Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr. and later registered by that the term “cohabitation” or “living together as
Cirila as its absolute owner. On October 4, 1991, husband and wife” means not only residing under
Francisco died without any children. one roof, but also having repeated sexual
intercourse. Cohabitation, of course, means
On February 18, 1993, respondents filed a more than sexual intercourse, especially
complaint against petitioner for declaration of when one of the parties is already old and may no
nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery longer be interested in sex. At the very least,
of possession, and damages. Respondents, who cohabitation is the public assumption by a man
are the decedent’s nephews and nieces and his and a woman of the marital relation, and dwelling
heirs by intestate succession, alleged that Cirila together as man and wife, thereby holding
was the common-law wife of Francisco and the themselves out to the public as such.
donation inter vivos made by Francisco in her
favor is void under Article 87 of the Family Code. It is difficult to believe that she stayed with
Francisco and served him out of pure
Article 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous beneficence. Human reason would thus lead to
advantage, direct or indirect, between the the conclusion that she was Francisco’s common-
spouses during the marriage shall be void, except law spouse. Respondents having proven by a
moderate gifts which the spouses may give each preponderance of evidence that Cirila and
other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. Francisco lived together as husband and wife
without a valid marriage, the inescapable
conclusion is that the donation made by Francisco
1|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES

in favor of Cirila is void under Art. 87 of the payment of the full amount. Evidently, there was
Family Code. a check issued worth $25,000 paid to the owner
of the Paranaque property which became the
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals conjugal dwelling of the spouses. The wife
affirming the decision of the trial court is hereby executed an instrument acknowledging the loan
AFFIRMED. but Abelardo did not sign.
SO ORDERED.

RULING OF THE RTC:
Liabilities of the Absolute Community
On June 26, 1996, the RTC Valenzuela (Branch 71)
rendered its judgement in favor of the petitioner.
2. Carlos vs. Abelardo, GR No. 146504, April
The dispositive portion reads:
9, 2002
1. Ordering the respondent and his wife,
Background:
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo, to pay petitioner
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari
the amount of US$25,000.00 or its equivalent in
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the decision
Philippine Currency at the time of its payment,
of the Court of Appeals dated November 10, 2000
plus legal interest from August 24, 1994 until fully
in CA-G.R. CV No. 54464 which reversed and set
paid;
aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
2. Ordering Manuel T. Abelardo to pay
Valenzuela, Branch 172, and dismissed for
Honorio L. Carlos the amount of P500,000.00
insufficiency of evidence the complaint for a sum
representing moral damages and the further
of money and damages filed by herein petitioner
amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Honorio Carlos against respondent Manuel
3. Ordering the respondent and his wife,
Abelardo, his son-in-law, and the latter’s wife,
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo, to pay petitioner
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo.
the amount of P100, 000.00 as attorney’s fees,
plus the costs of suit.
FACTS:
On October 13, 1994, Honorio Carlos (Carlos)
RULING OF THE CA:
filed a petition against Manuel Abelardo
Respondent Abelardo appealed the decision of
(Abelardo), his son-in-law, for the recovery of
the trial court to the Court of Appeals. On
US$25,000.00 loan used to purchase a house and
November 10, 2000, the Court of Appeals
lot located in Parañaque. Carlos averred in his
reversed and set aside the trial court’s decision
complaint that in October 1989, respondent and
and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of
his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo
evidence to show that the subject amount was
approached him and requested him to advance
indeed loaned by petitioner to respondent and his
the amount of US$25,000.00 Petitioner then
wife. The Court of Appeals found that the amount
issued a check in the name of a certain Pura
of US$25,000.00 was respondent’s share in the
Vallejo, seller of the property, who acknowledged
profits of H.L. Carlos Construction. Hence, this
receipt thereof.
petition.
When petitioner inquired from the spouses in as
ISSUE:
to the status of the amount he loaned to them
Whether or not a loan obtained to purchase the
sometime July 1991, the latter acknowledged
conjugal dwelling can be charged against the
their obligation but pleaded that they were not
conjugal partnership.
yet in a position to make a definite settlement of
the same. Thereafter, respondent expressed
RULING OF THE SC:
violent resistance to petitioner’s inquiries on the
The court found merit in the petition.
amount to the extent of making various death
Early in time, it must be noted that payment of
threats against petitioner.
personal debts contracted by the husband or the
wife before or during the marriage shall not be
On August 24, 1994, petitioner made a formal
charged to the conjugal partnership except
demand for the payment of the amount of
insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the
US$25,000.00 but the spouses failed to comply
family. The defendants never denied that the
with their obligation. Consequently, petitioner
check of US$25,000.00 was used to purchase the
filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money
subject house and lot. They do not deny that the
and damages against respondent and his wife
same served as their conjugal home, thus
before the RTC of Valenzuela (Branch 172).
benefiting the family. Hence, defendant-husband
and defendant-wife are jointly and severally liable
As the respondent and his wife were separated
in the payment of the loan.
for more than a year prior to the filing of the
complaint, they filed separate answers. Abelardo
The evidence adduced by petitioner sufficiently
contended that the amount was never intended
established his claim that the US$25,000.00 he
as a loan but his share of income on contracts
advanced to respondent and his wife was a loan.
obtained by him in the construction firm (using
The loan is the liability of the conjugal
the name H.L. CARLOS CONSTRUCTION) and that
partnership pursuant to Article 121 of the Family
the petitioner could have easily deducted the
Code:
debt from his share in the profits. He also denied
having made death threats to Carlos. By way of
Article 121. The conjugal partnership shall be
compulsory counterclaim, respondent asked for
liable for:
moral damages from petitioner for causing
xxx
alienation of his wife’s love and affection,
(2) All debts and obligations contracted during
attorney’s fee and cost of suit. Maria Theresa
the marriage by the designated administrator-
Carlos-Abelardo, on the other hand, admitted
spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership
securing a loan together with her husband, from
of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them
petitioner. She claimed, however, that said loan
with the consent of the other;
was payable on a staggered basis so she was
surprised when petitioner demanded immediate

2|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES

471 SCRA 306 HELD: Since the sale was executed on May 23. Carmencita. undoubtedly. however. had a restroom and a concrete Hence. 68873. The Deed of Sale was the courts for the annulment of the contract annotated by the Register of Deeds as within 10 years from its execution. THE SALE IS The petition was granted. all surnamed HELD: Durana. 2005. the other heirs Ramones. whom he had five children. GR No. Disposition of the Community Property SC DECISION: AFFIRMED the decision of the CA. Article 166 is categorical that the  On May 23. of Vitorina Durana are the petitioner herself and the intervenors who are all the children of COURT OF APPEALS CASE Bienvenida Durana. 137808. Evaristo. ask the courts for benefit of the family because it was used to annulment of any contract of the husband purchase the house and lot which became the entered into without her consent. husband without the consent of the wife. Santos Ramones to Agbayani without Agbayani’s knowledge.. wifes consent. the assailed Deed is still valid and septic tank built on the area sold by enforceable. Aldegonda Ramones. Agbayani. Santos Ramones. notwithstanding the alleged lack of alienation of the conjugal property by the consent of respondent. De Ramones vs. The latter's heirs are the void since it was executed without the children of her two sisters and a brother namely: consent of his wife.(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either Confirmed the Deed of Sale and declared spouse without the consent of the other to the Agbayanis the absolute owners of the lot in extent that the family may have been benefited. Administration. September 30. SINCE THE Family Code. FACTS: the provisions of the Civil Code of 1950 will apply. 3. Liquidation of the Absolute Community Assets and Liabilities REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CASE (Agbayani vs 4.000 or its equivalent in SUPREME COURT CASE (Petition for Review Philippine currency at the time of payment plus on Certiorari) legal interest including moral and exemplary damages. during acknowledgment executed and signed by his the marriage and within ten (10) years from the wife. 1980. Lucilda without the consent of the wife Aldegonda and Conrado. As held by this Subsequently. under Art. 171 SCRA 524  Agbayani filed a complaint for quieting of title FACTS: and recovery of possession against Cesario Cabutihan was married to Beinvenida petitioners on the basis of the Deed of Sale Durana. March 31. 21 of the husband void. must be Aldegonda. all surnamed Dael. he shall be solidarily liable for such RAMONES WIFE DID NOT ASK FOR THE loan together with his wife. sold to Aurora P. It is merely voidable. If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities.. Domingo Jr. Jr. herein to invalidate the contract has thus prescribed. the spouses shall be HELD: Article 166 of the Civil Code prohibits solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their alienation or encumbrance of real property by the separate properties. and attorney’s fees. Court of Appeals was modified and respondent Abelardo is ordered to pay the petitioner ithe amount of US$25. Fredizvinda. Lermo and Bienvenido all surnamed Cabutihan. This provision. The decision of the VALID. 90 at the back of TCT No.[8] her right to bring an action daughters Beatriz and Margarita. the lack of consent by the wife will not make the Hence. 1979 before the effectivity of the Family Code. question.. Federico. Cesario  The Ramoneses contended that the sale contracted a second marriage with his former between Santos Ramones and Agbayani is wife’s sister Victorina.00. GR No. 1979. husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the without the knowledge of his wife. Sale entered into by her husband. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of real property belonging to the conjugal partnership by Santos Ownership. Bienvenida Durana. petitioners. 3|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES . Ramones) 1989. Here. Aldegonda and her Court in Villaranda. executed by Santos Ramones. This xxx provision should be read with Article 173 of the While respondent did not and refused to sign the same Code providing that the wife may. Entry No. T- 43468. In other words. Romulo. Soledad Durana and Federico Durana Sr. while Soledad Durana is the mother of The Deed of Sale is void because it was executed the other oppsitors. there is no proof that petitioner Aldegonda Ramones filed any complaint to annul the Deed of  On March 7. Vda. Dael vs IAC. CA DECISION: REVERSED the decision of the RTC.000. Clearly. Enjoyment and Ramones without his wifes consent is void. the latter is the father of the RTC DECISION: IN FAVOR of the Ramoneses oppositors. Santos Ramones died. Agbayani a interpreted in conjunction with Article 173 of the 100-square meter portion of the conjugal same Code which provides that the wife may ask lot for P5. ANNULMENT OF THE DEED OF SALE WITHIN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE. Upon the death of the wife. the loan redounded to the questioned transaction. Fabian and Fe Patricio. conjugal home of respondent and his family. Flordelizada .

Ruling of RTC: namely. Petitioners submit that both the respondent and Nonilon Carmencita. hence this petition for of Cesario Cabutihan. his second wife. Respondent fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29). (PBMCI) Executive Vice- 4|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES . including the copra business. and one-sixth (1/6) of the estate of Cesario Cabutihan as fixed The first marriage existed for approximately herein. namely: Victorina properties. the first conjugal of Victorina Durana from the list of properties. maintain the theory that the marital The estate of Victorina Durana. (PBMCI) first conjugal partnership belong to Cesario as his obtained two loans from the Allied Banking conjugal share therein. of the properties court promulgated its decision which affirmed the listed in the inventory. Court of Appeals. equally among his six (6) heirs. by Cesario Cabutihan and his five (5) children. Durana considering that their predecessors-in- interest are the brother and sister of Victorina The properties pertaining to the second Durana. FACTS: One-half (1/2) of the properties that pertain to the Philippine Blooming Mills Company. GR No. Applying the aforestated Conjugal Properties rule. Private respondents filed settlement over the property of their deceased parents to the Court of To recapitulate. Thus. and (b) The business. The properties shall be divided in the following Ruling of CA: manner: (a) Seven-twelfths (7/12) of fifteen As a consequence. and said properties shall be divided fifteen (15) years (1942 to 1957). That which erroneously include even the Estate of the conjugal partnership was then converted into an First Marriage. the inheritance of Cesario Bienvenido. Inc. Lermo and lower courts erred in concluding that the copra Bienvenido. Consequently. and his legitimate no longer be conjugal but would belong in part to children by his first wife. conjugal partnership properties. while the remaining 1/3 portion should partnership shall also be equally divided. as their respective of the first marriage between Cesario and participations in their mother's inheritance. 2004 (14/29) thereof. the first conjugal partnership will be prorated a share of fifteen twenty-ninths (15/29) of the properties. Bienvenida. all Cesario. the conjugal estate of Cesario's implied ordinary co-ownership. Victorina and his five (5) children. partnership was automatically dissolved. therefore. partnership will get fourteen twenty-ninths 126642. acquired respective and definite Cabutihan in the Estate of Bienvenida Durana in rights over one-half (1/2) of the conjugal addition to the other one (1/2) half which is his partnership property which pertained to share in the conjugal partnership with his wife Bienvinida. The share of Cesario should then be divided among his heirs. Is the marital community of proprietary interest credit and capital in managing the business. point in time that the inheritance was transmitted one-half of the conjugal estate shall be inherited to the heirs of Bienvenida. Romulo. 23. HOLDING: To determine. That the copra business was formed during the first ISSUE: marriage and Victorina used the same facilities. the extent of the estate When Bienvenida Durana died. Durana shall consist only of her share in the inheritance of the Estate of Cesario Cabutihan. while the second conjugal 5. one of the private respondents herein. second marriage lasted for about fourteen (14) years (1958 to 1972). This estate shall be divided certiorari. the estate of Victorina for First Instance of Quezon by Carmencita distribution to her heirs shall consist of her one- Cabutihan. The fruits and income of the other half of the property of the conjugal partnership would Hence. petitioners appealed to the twenty-ninths (15/29). properties of the second marriage. whatever fruits or Bienvenida shall constitute Cesario's estate which income may thereafter be derived from the shall be inherited by his heirs.It is claimed by all the oppositors that they are be considered as inherited by him and his five entitled to 2/3 portion of the estate of Victorina children as the heirs of Bienvenida. Feb. The decision of the lower courts was set aside. CABUTIHAN. the extent of the Estate of Victorina exclusively belong to Cesario. even the main source of the income not only of Cesario after the Cesario-Beinvenida conjugal partnership and also of Victorina during their respective has been dissolved by the death of Bienvenida? lifetimes was the copra business. all surnamed Cabutihan. and his five (5) children. all surnamed the heirs in proportion to their respective shares. her heirs. Lermo and surnamed CABUTIHAN. while the other half shall Corporation (ABC). are assets of the conjugal partnership the said five (5) children. shall consist of community of proprietary interest continued to one-half (1/2) of the other portion constituting exist even after the Cesario-Bienvenida conjugal fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29) of the properties partnership had been dissolved by the death of which represents her share in the conjugal Bienvenida. They argued that to so hold would. his second wife. half (1/2) share in the conjugal properties of the Trial Court rendered a decision holding that aforesaid second marriage and her one-sixth (1/6) Victorina Durana had no paraphernal properties share in the estate of Cesario as an heir. in effect. while the among her heirs. namely. and continued to exist in the second marriage. Ching vs. Nonilon Carmencita Romulo. as well as the properties listed in the remaining five-twelfths (5/12) of fifteen twenty- inventories as acquired during the second ninths (15/29) of the properties shall belong to marriage. It was also at this first marriage must be settled or liquidated first. brought to her marriage with Cesario. would Durana. and one-half (1/2) of former Intermediate Appellate Court. shall constitute the estate decision of the lower court. one-half devolve to the petitioner and the intervenors who (1/2) to belong to Cesario and the other to represent their mother Bienvenida Durana and Victorina as their respective shares in their the other sister of Victorina Durana. Victorina.

error committed by the appellate court in affirming the dismissal of the RTC. he stopped paying rentals thereon. presumed to be Appeals. affirmed the The appellate court erred in concluding that the Decision of the Court of Appeals. of Sale covering Alfredos lot and the husband’s profession or business. good customs. and even paid rentals and suretyship agreement with the private to petitioner. Petitioner house and a two-door apartment building. finding no reversible acquired the stocks with his exclusive money. also for the same purpose. Manuel and under Art. According to petitioner. According to the sign a document. litigation and burdened to establish that such benefit incidental expenses. contending that petitioner had no cause of action 5|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES . morals. in G. The CA erred in holding that by executing a contrary to law. Ching. however. advantages accrued to the spouses. petitioner sought from respondents be benefited. 166496. The private respondent failed to SC: Subsequently. respondents Ismael and Flora Ferrer made him petitioner Alfredo Ching. Ching. the conjugal partnership would thereby share. on of the latter.44 improvements thereon. Ferrer (Manuel) and of the loans. 1991.R. filed a Motion to Set Aside the levy on • Before her marriage to Alfredo. and public continuing guaranty and suretyship agreement policy. including a residential marriage out of conjugal funds. a Complaint for Annulment of WON 100. a half-brother of of said Alfredo Ching to answer for the payment respondents Manuel M. funds as they had occupied one of the apartment husband’s act of executing a continuing guaranty buildings on Alfredo’s lot. guaranty with the ABC for the payment of the 2006 (Art. solely for the benefit render an accounting from September.000. She alleged that the cost of the improvements amounted to P500. the name of one of the spouses. !21 and that such presumption Ismael and their spouses. was a Deed contracted in the pursuit of the petitioner. Encarnacion T. 9. and to remit one-half thereof as her of surety. Alfredo filed with ISSUE: the RTC of Pasig. redounded to the conjugal partnership. 120) said loan. one-half For the conjugal partnership to be liable for a thereof should be reimbursed and paid by liability that should appertain to the husband respondents as they are now the registered alone. on 7 November 1994.000 acquired a piece of lot. the latter attachment allegeing inter alia that the 100. Trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against Alfredo Ching • Petitioner Josefa alleged that she is the widow requiring the sheriff of to attach all the properties of Alfredo Ferrer (Alfredo). • Learning of this development. CA: The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of The shares of stocks are. subsists even if the property is registered only in • When her husband was already bedridden. Ferrer vs.President Alfredo Ching executed a continuing 6. the suretyship obligation was not testament. Nov. purported to be his last will and petitioners. when Alfredo died on 29 September Article 121 provides: The conjugal partnership 1999. the ruling of the RTC shows that. there being no compelling the PBMCI loans. No presumption can be inferred from the income of the boarding house constructed the fact that when the petitioner-husband entered thereon which they had appropriated for into an accommodation agreement or a contract themselves. conjugal partnership is liable for the said account of PBMCI. the petitioner-husband was in reason under the law to do otherwise. or at the time of the liquidation of the shall be liable for: (1) All debts and obligations conjugal partnership. The PBMCI defaulted in the payment of all its loans so ABC filed a complaint for sum of Facts: money against the PBMCI. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. Finally. acquisition of the levied shares of stocks is not alleging that he had acquired ownership over the the controlling factor when invoking the property by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed by presumption of the conjugal nature of stocks Alfredo in favor of respondents.000 shares of stocks may be levied on the said sale against respondents. The contract of loan was between the private Petitioner prayed that respondents be ordered to respondent and the PBMCI. L-117067. the exercise of his profession. thus. Ferrer (Ismael).00. she had the right to be contracted by the husband for the benefit of the reimbursed for the cost of the improvements on conjugal partnership. by the sheriff to answer for the loans guaranteed by petitioner Alfredo Ching RTC: RTC dismissed the same. and those contracted by the Alfredo’s lot. in the cases where she may legally bind the partnership. No. the conjugal partnership property of the petitioners. shares of stocks levied on by the sheriff were • He applied for a loan with the SSS to build acquired by her and her husband during their improvements thereon. She averred that respondents cannot claim lack In this case. respondent for and in behalf of PBMCI. wife. pursuing a legitimate business. hence. in this case. The private respondent was moral and exemplary damages. Ferrer. spouses aver that the source of funds in the • However. RTC found that the HELD: terms and conditions of the deed of sale are not No. there must be a showing that some owners of Alfredo’s lot. the private respondent failed to of knowledge about the fact that the prove that the conjugal partnership of the improvements were constructed using conjugal petitioners was benefited by the petitioner. wife of Alfredo Ismael M. GR No. and should be complied with by the with the private respondent for the payment of parties in good faith. this adduce evidence that the petitioner-husband Court. The document.

when the cost of the improvement and any By way of Counterclaim. Tan property of the owner-spouse at the time of the denying having 1) executed and signed the two improvement. Tan and Eliza Go Tan ISSUE: filed a complaint3 against petitioners. Cuarto. 1992 was hers. Article 120 provides the solution in Petitioners further alleged that the deeds of real determining the ownership of the improvements estate mortgage. Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Oriental issued a "Sheriff’s Notice of Sale" setting on April 17. exemplary damages. Certiorari. and likewise crediting precisely declared as the exclusive property of the testimony of respondent Eliza Go Tan denying Alfredo on the basis of Article 120 of the Family that the signature appearing on the real estate Code. A day before the scheduled public auction of the Hence. 1998 Aggrieved. and improvement. Tan who was referred to in the However.000. defendant Metrobank had no basis 6|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES . spouse as contemplated in Art. said property shall be amendments of the mortgage. There is no obligation Misamis Oriental issued a Sheriff’s Certificate of on the part of the purchaser of the property. 2) received the retained in ownership by the owner-spouse. Indeed. 30. petitioner filed a Motion for the sale at public auction of four mortgaged Reconsideration thereon. MBTC vs. subject to reimbursement of the value of the Crediting the testimony of respondent Jose B. premises. respondent spouses Jose B. compensatory value of the property at the time of the and/or moral damages. along with WON respondents have an obligation to respect Albano L. 61327. Aggrieved. 120 22 of the family code to be reimbursed for the cost of the As scheduled. It held On the application for extra-judicial foreclosure of that petitioners Complaint is not the proper mortgage filed by herein petitioners Metropolitan action for the respondent to enforce her right of Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) and its Vice reimbursement of the cost of the improvements President Rogelio T. otherwise. While it made a reference to the right of the Oriental. mortgaged properties or on April 16. amount of P40. for removal of cloud on the title in question and injunction HELD: before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis NO. Thus. costs rested. Uy (Uy). real estate mortgages had been fully paid as of despite the allegations contained in the July 1.The subject property was mortgage for P40. the entire property of one of the other reliefs. the Court of title. and 3) appeared before likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of Notary Public Joel Peñaranda who notarized11 the the improvement.A subsequent Order[11] dated 17 January the subject premises from alfredo under the 2003 was issued by the RTC. and credit that are made on the separate property of the line agreements bore the signature of respondent spouses at the expense of the partnership or Jose B. This is because the validity of the Deed of Sale had already been determined CA: and upheld with finality. as the case According to the RTC. Sheriff IV of the Office of the her right to be reimbursed Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Oriental. the present recourse. 1998 following on the spouse upon whom ownership of the which the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of entire property is vested. respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a Petition for The petition is denied. 61327 had respondents Motion for Reconsideration. RTC in denying the dismissal. on 17 December 2004.000. are not petitioners spouse nor can they ever be deemed as the owner-spouse upon whom Note: In Case of Emergency. highest bidder. spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership. respondents do not the improvements constructed on Alfredos lot has have the obligation to respect petitioners right to been made in Civil Case No. payment of petitioners share in the conjugal partnership constitutes a separate cause of The right of the respondents to acquire as buyers action. please refer to this the obligation to reimburse petitioner for her portion. parcels of land registered in the name of herein respondent Jose B. alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the 7. denying the Motion to reimburse the conjugal partnership or the spouse Dismiss.against them. the obligation to reimburse rests properties took place on April 17. the Office of the on the subject property. 1997. and the be reimbursed. promissory notes. petitioners prayed for resulting increase in value are more than the the award of attorney’s fees. co-respondent Eliza Go Tan’s signature appeared. Otherwise stated. his wife- spouses. mortgage dated November 5.12 and finding that the existing loans covered by What is incontrovertible is that the respondents. in one of them. Appeals rendered a Resolution denying the motion. Tan. RTC: It is the owner-spouse who has the obligation to RTC rendered an Order.000. the case the property is sold by the owner-spouse. 2006 On 16 August 2004. GR No. who expended the acts or efforts.00. Tan either for himself or as attorney-in-fact through the acts or efforts of either or both of his son Ariel Tan and. the public auction of the foreclosed improvements. and that the cause of action was Complaint that they are the buyers of the subject barred by prior judgment. been laid to rest. 1998. Nov. 163712. denying assailed Deed of Sale in Civil Case No. in Sale in the name of petitioner Metrobank. the Court of Appeals Facts: rendered a Decision granting the Petition. no pronouncement as to may be.

Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling sons Rey John Tan and Ariel Tan. 1992. Tan insisted that he was not a Filipina. Credit Line Agreements. he pointing to the absence of his subsisting. However. Issue: 8. is DISMISSED. the Court of Eliza Go Tan v. and Joselyn ran away with Kim Philippsen. 1988. The property could without the consent of her British husband is have been acquired by Corazon while she was valid still single. title. property required his consent. And it Branch 38 of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. any transaction involving said that her husband is also a registered owner. On June 30. "Jose B. Section 7. On June 9. the extra-judicial foreclosure and WHEREFORE. 3.000. abovementioned documents were forged. of legal age. sell. favor of Benjamin. Tan on the to their Boracay property. entered into an Agreement of Lease involving the Boracay As for the claim that respondent Eliza Go Tan did property for a period of 25 years. Tan is a party 22. and sub-lease and otherwise In the absence of proof. void since it was entered into by Joselyn without Benjamin’s consent. constructed improvements thereon and evidence Promissory Notes – Exhibits "B-2" and eventually converted the property to a vacation "B-4" dated July 1. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin. Inn. Facts: 1. Gr. Benjamin claimed that his funds were used in alone because the phrase "married to Rogelio the acquisition and improvement of the Boracay Ruiz" is merely descriptive of the civil status of property. as follows: WHEREFORE. Joselyn executed a SPA in title in question. however. Before such presumption can apply. does not lie. and registered only after her marriage 2. the same is belied by her signature 9. No. The assailed decision of the appellate court is SET Ruling of the Court of Appeals: ASIDE. married to Issue: Rogelio Ruiz" is not proof that such property was 1. title is registered in the name of Corazon 11. authorizing the latter to maintain. On July 20. lease. proof of acquisition during the marriage is foreclosure proceedings. married to Rogelio Ruiz. and coupled with the fact that he was Corazon and should not be construed to mean Joselyn’s husband. disclosure statements. Tan and Eliza G. 1992. Furthermore. Whether or not Benjamin is the actual owner of to Rogelio Ruiz. Benjamin instituted an The property subject of the mortgage is action for Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of registered in the name of "Corazon G. is parcel of land entered into by a Filipino wife presumed to be conjugal. On June 8. party to the documents bearing on the grant of 2. 2003. of Lease with Damages against Joselyn and the legal age. and an Amendment of 4. Joselyn as lessor and Court is constrained to uphold their genuineness. Tan and against the defendants.. And these out. in question. this Court subsequent sale of the mortgaged property hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff’s covered by the title in question was valid. Respondents presented in funds. et al. Claiming that the Agreement was null and forged. 1989. Jose B. disposing as at bar. Taylor.00. Filipinos. Tan and By Decision of November 21. Whether or not the Agreement of Lease of a acquired during the marriage. this 8. 1997. a Ruling: British subject. Petitioner thereafter took possession of the on Exhibit "18"-Real Estate Mortgage which is property and renamed the resort as Music Garden annotated as Entry No." filed before and raffled to accordingly dismissed petitioners’ appeal. The purchasing the same presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code that properties acquired during the marriage are Ruling: presumed to be conjugal cannot apply in the instant case. spouses Jose B. and tourist resort known as the Admiral Ben Bow respectively. Her bare denial that the signature was 10. 5. Martin a signature above his typewritten name on the lot (Boracay property).to be paid again through the extra-judicial words. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution it must first be established that the property was states: in fact acquired during the marriage. Ruiz. that the enter into contract with third parties with respect signatures of respondent Jose B. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and Company." petitioner. 174644 at the back of the Resort. premises considered. the petition is GRANTED. as solidary co-debtor of his 6. 2009 to the questioned extra-judicial foreclosure and public auction sale. also using the latter’s Real Estate Mortgage. a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal ownership. Joselyn’s sister. 98-225. Joselyn and Benjamin. any allegation. Matthews vs. Thus. documents were annotated at the back of the 7. registration of the property in the name of "Corazon G. In other 7|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES . Acquisition of title and the property since he provided the funds used in registration thereof are two different acts. petitioner Philip Matthews as lessee. while their marriage was the credit line. 1997 and June 24. Ruiz. married Joselyn. with an annual not give her consent to the mortgage of the title rental of P12. No Ruling of Misamis Oriental RTC Branch 38: such proof was offered nor presented in the case Judgment in favor of respondents. without more. follows: In fine. Civil Case No. 164584. Tan. promissory notes. and thus. All required permits and licenses for the All document-exhibits of petitioners which are operation of the resort were obtained in the name original copies bear the signature of respondent of Ginna Celestino. Joselyn bought from Diosa M. Oriental. respondent Benjamin. June Whether or not respondent Jose B. a 17-year old Respondent Jose B.

P293. Hence. as more and more aliens attempt to Thereafter. acquiring private and public lands in the The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed Philippines. considering that Milagros de Guzman. be declared conjugal. and his skill in absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private repairing and upgrading radio/communication lands in the Philippines. System (MBS). GR No. of said property. Thus.000 from it. The right Carandangs refused to pay.125 out of the mentioned amount was again constitutional provision. is not an interest’ and not an ‘indispensable party’. attorney’s fees. save only in equipment therefore. When the capital stock of MBS was increased on no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed November 26. The Carandangs appealed the trial court’s being an alien. 1989." prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property. but the CA affirmed the same. no implied trust was decedent’s wife. as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. while the latter query is NATURE OF THE CASE: This case reached the asking if she is an indispensable party. Although the spouses Carandang were Constitution does not permit him to have. together with damages. he had and has no capacity or that: “(i)f a suit is not brought in the name of or personality to question the subsequent lease of against the real party in interest. If the property were to action. and costs of Lease between Joselyn and petitioner. land. In of the action by reason of a jurisprudence stating any event.250 from the said amount associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of was loaned by Quirino to the Carandangs. Since the Supreme Court as an appeal to the decision of issue of this case calls for the definition of an the CA ruling against the spouses Carandang and indispensable party. The primary purpose of this constitutional provision is the When Quirino sent a demand letter to the conservation of the national patrimony. whether individuals or corporations. sixty percent of the capital of which is owned by whereby Quirino promised to pay for the stock Filipinos. no rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition. Hence. Nov. Quirino filed a complaint seeking to circumvent the provision by trying to own lands recover the P336. corporations. 29. the failure to join Milagros be made that the subject property was part of the as a party in the case should cause the dismissal conjugal/community property of the spouses. Carandang vs. have March 3. the knowing that it was illegal. subscriptions of the Arcadio without cost. 160347. But. the decedent’s wife. no reimbursement for his considered as an indispensable party in the expenses can be allowed. a motion to the Boracay property by his wife on the theory dismiss may be filed on the ground that the that in so doing. by virtue of the aforecited P43. her Although it is important to take note that an non-inclusion in the case does not warrant a indispensable party is also a real party in interest. dismissal of the complaint.” The first query Guzman. indispensable party in the complaint. Heirs of Quirino de outcome are actually pleaded. To sustain such a theory would ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC should have countenance indirect controversion of the dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of constitutional prohibition. there is no indebtedness on constitutionally recognized exceptions. The RTC ruled in favor of Quirino and ordered the Carandangs to pay the Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of loan plus interest. Considering that Joselyn appeared to by the Carandangs were also denied. she acquired sole ownership thereto. public domain. In the the public domain. invoking the denying their motion for reconsideration. This is a right that the HELD: No. correct in invoking the aforementioned doctrine.750. There is the part of the Carandangs. Benjamin. Our Carandangs for the payment of the loan. They contend that a to acquire lands of the public domain is reserved pre-incorporation agreement was executed only to Filipino citizens or corporations at least between Arcadio Carandang and Quirino. in consideration for Arcadio’s technical expertise. whom no final determination can be had of an action 8|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES .Section 7. the Carandangs subscribed except to individuals. this be the designated "vendee" in the Deed of Sale appeal to the SC. By entering into such contract issued in the name of Milagros de Guzman. This is true even if we sustain Benjamin’s SPOUSES CARANDANG: Three of the four claim that he provided the funds for such checks used to pay their stock subscriptions were acquisition. and no declaration can complaint. The Carandangs have equities at > Indispensable party – a party in interest without 54 % while Quirino has 46%. and not whether all persons interested in such 9. 2006 seeks to answer the question of whether Milagros is a real party in interest. The CA abovementioned doctrine is irrelevant to the case affirmed the RTC’s decision that Milagros de because the doctrine talks about a ‘real party in Guzman. *Definitions: FACTS: Spouses Carandang and the decedent > Real party in interest – the party who stands to Quirino de Guzman were stockholders and be benefited or injured by the judgment of the corporate officers of Mabuhay Broadcasting suit. he was merely exercising the complaint states no cause of action. Milagros should be created in his favor. the fundamental law cannot be any clearer. The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are his newly purchased equipment. was not husband a substantial interest and right over the included as a party-plaintiff. Save in cases of hereditary succession. from acquiring private lands. or P345. hence.375 total amount of the loan through another. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. subsequent increase in MBS’ capital stock on Aliens. this would accord the alien allegedly an indispensable party. they are also disqualified loaned by Quirino. 1983. Being such. is absolutely prohibited from decision to the CA. suit. the ground set forth entails an examination of Liabilities of the Conjugal Partnership “whether the parties presently pleaded are interested in the outcome of the litigation. the Carandangs subscribed again been disqualified from acquiring lands of the to the increase in the amount of P93.

any one of them may wife may have no legal interest in such property. Hence. formal requirement which may be cured by amendment. for the but the rules nevertheless require that she be recovery of co-owned properties. not warranted by her not being a party thereto.000. Milagros de Guzman is not an indispensable made. only joined as a party. in the instances that the pro-forma Lacson and Lopa. Lopa who bound themselves jointly and void. 4. Martinez. such presumption subsists. party would not warrant the dismissal of the complaint. Thus. applicable substantive law or procedural rule. Pro-forma parties can either be indispensable. rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the eventually ceasing operations. except as provided by may separately bring an action for the recovery law. one of the co-owners. payment of the loan. and dismissal of the suit is loan or other credit transaction was executed. There being no evidence to the contrary. they 10. however. we held that the respondent corporation and individual failure to join the spouse in that case was not a respondents in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of jurisdictional defect. applied for a interest. is an indispensable party thereto. As such. since the suit is relations. Nov. when an indispensable corporation. dismissal is warranted only if the but who ought to be joined as a party if complete pro-forma party not joined in the complaint is an relief is to be accorded as to those already indispensable party.2leaving Martinez as the parties are also indispensable or necessary remaining individual respondent. 29. contracted or registered in the name of party in the action for the recovery of the one or both spouses. Spouses as parties. SBTC vs. for example. the regime of conjugal complete relief can be accorded in the suit even partnership of gains govern their property without their participation. parties. is certainly a real party in president. in suits to recover properties. any kind of action. Martinez. a husband owners are real parties in interest. not only as to severally with respondent corporation for the the absent parties but even as to those present. for a marriage settlement. The before the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 other co-owners are not indispensable parties.. presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. whether the acquisition appears to have been Thus. 3947. GR No. As such. with regard to the discussion on the effect Petitioner approved the application and entered of non-inclusion of parties in the complaint filed: into a credit line agreement with respondent in indispensable parties. The non-joinder of a spouse Makati. the action should be agreement executed by individual respondents dismissed. Quirino and Milagros de Guzman shall sue or be sued jointly. Wilfrido C. through its partnership property. Branch 66. should be 9|JRCMENDOZA L AW ARCHIVES . parties. the RTC: general rule under Section 11. the non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from Respondent corporation was not able to pay all its proceeding in the action. or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action Under Art. Now. Non-compliance complaint against respondent corp and individual with the order for the inclusion of a necessary respondents. bring an action. 147 of the Civil Code which was > Pro-forma parties – those who are required to superceded by Art. August 1988. It was secured by an indemnity party is not before the court. Therefore. Therefore. she need not have been personal properties. Petitioner filed a rights of such necessary party. as the case may be. Rule 3 must be Unable to collect the balance of the loan.) Assuming that the four checks are credits. The relevant jurisprudence. namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned Quirino and Milagros de Guzman were married property. – Husband and wife alleged credit. acquired during the time the impleaded in said suit. It was docketed as Civil Case does not warrant dismissal as it is merely a No. necessary or neither indispensable nor necessary. Rule 3 of property in this case – the credit incurred by the Rules of Court: spouses Carandang. The absence of an indispensable party Wilfrido C. for want of authority to act. For necessary parties. Being co-owners of the Sec. Mar Tierra Corp. Miguel J.> Necessary party – one who is not indispensable applied. for pro-forma parties. is presumed to be conjugal allegedly loaned money to the spouses unless the contrary is proved. the be joined as co-parties in suits by or against conjugal partnership shall be governed by the another party as may be provided by the rules on the contract of partnership. Subsequently. 108 of the Family Code. 2006 and Milagros. Lastly. Thus. credits loaned during the time of the (The Civ Pro issue was not the main issue in the marriage are presumed to be conjugal property.000 credit accommodation with petitioner Security Bank and Trust Company. all co- The third case occurs if. and the judgment debt balance as it suffered business reversals. in a case concerning an action with a prayer for preliminary attachment against to recover a sum of money. Milagros is a co-owner of the subject personal An example is provided by Section 4. petitioner had the case dismissed with respect to individual respondents Conversely. files an action to recover a property which he pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and claims to be part of his exclusive property. However. As they did not execute any They are not even necessary parties. Facts: Quirino de Guzman. case. the rules concerning indispensable or necessary parties. Lacson and Ricardo renders all subsequent actuations of the court A. Credits are Carandang. are assumed to be conjugal properties of Quirino 143382. followed: such non-joinder is not a ground for petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money dismissal. P12. “In sum.” All property acquired during the marriage. thereof. being a co-owner of specific Respondent Mar Tierra Corporation.

290.000 as attorney’s fees. if the money or services are earnest money was dishonored due to given to another person or entity and the insufficiency of funds and while it was replaced husband acted only as a surety or guarantor. Court of Appeals. executed in favor of Macatangay. It held registered owners of a parcel of land with respondent corporation and individual respondent improvements. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial credit line agreement between petitioner and court. Arturos conjugal share in the property Administration of the Conjugal RULING OF THE COURT: Dissatisfied with the appellate courts disposition Partnership Property of the case. where the husband the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) ostensibly contracts an obligation on behalf of the family issued by Esther in favor of Arturo was void as it business. It is for the benefit of the principal debtor and not for the surety or his family. GR No. the direct recipient of the money execute in favor of herein respondent a deed of and services to be used in or for his own business sale over the subject property. Petitioner had the burden was effected. this petition. respondent corporation. Esther. between Arturo and Galicano? In Ayala Investment and Development RULING OF THE RTC: Corporation v. a Contract for an indemnity agreement entered into by the to sell the property to the extent of her conjugal husband to accommodate a third party. in acting as a guarantor or surety for another. Macatangay. Abalos vs. Under Article 161(1) of the days along with the deed of absolute sale upon Civil Code..000. the In the case at bar. plus P10. The Regional Trial or profession. money amounting to P5. it ordered the lifting of the possession of the property shall have been turned attachment on the conjugal house and lot of the over to Macatangay. Arturo and Esther had a marital affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Hence. while he promised to pay the “all debts and obligations contracted by the balance of the purchase price for P1. v. petitioner appealed to the CA but the appellate court Subsequently. Macatangay gave an earnest spouses Martinez. The couple failed to The court ruled in Luzon Surety Co. She agreed to HELD: surrender the property to Macatangay within 20 No. property to respondent.000 less the sum already received by her and Arturo. petitioner Abalos seeks a reversal of its decision.304. binding himself to sell to latter the 5% penalty commencing on June 21. It ruled that partnership. 439 SCRA 649 specific performance must fail. It ruled that Arturo’s action for 155043. the principal contract. The indemnity agreement) under which individual appellate court ratiocinated that it was by virtue respondent Martinez assumed the obligation of a of the SPA executed by Esther. the court concluded that the obligation redounds to the benefit of the conjugal SPA could not have authorized Arturo to sell the partnership.00 in favor CA: of the spouses.300. September 30. RULING OF THE CA: On appeal taken by respondent Macatangay.RTC issued a writ of attachment on all real and personal properties of respondent corporation FACTS: and individual respondent Martinez including the Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the conjugal house and lot of the spouses. the transaction falls within the term Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint of “obligations for the benefit of the conjugal Macatangay for specific performance. On the other hand.. It ruled that the SPA in favor of Arturo. Inc. partnership.000. The accessory contract (the transaction between Esther and respondent.” Macatangay informed them that he was ready to pay the amount in full. was solely for the benefit assuming that it was void. in favor of her surety for respondent corporation was similarly sister. de deliver the property so he sued the spouses.00 to be deducted from the purchase price of P1.” In other words. Hence. The Supreme Court reversed the 11. Dissatisfied with the RTC decision.000 plus 12% interest per annum and Macatangay.000. decision of the CA.e. SC upheld the CA. interest for the sum of P650. through her WON the conjugal partnership may be held liable SPA. squabble brewing at that time and Macatangay. favor of respondent valid to effect the sale of It failed to discharge that burden. Even on the 10 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S .. the with another check by respondent. He then sent a letter informing them of his readiness to pay the full ISSUE: amount of the purchase price. there is a legal presumption that such was falsified. cannot affect the of the latter. Jr. i. title of the property. that the sale of the property to respondent for the latter’s benefit. Garcia that. Arturo made a Receipt and Martinez jointly and severally liable to petitioner Memorandum of Agreement in favor of for P5. But it other party within 30 days from date. partnership. Full found that it did not redound to the benefit of his payment would also be effected as soon as family. The trial court also noted that the check issued by respondent to cover the On the other hand. if Macatangay filed a complaint against the the husband himself is the principal obligor in the petitioner Abalos for specific performance to contract.00 husband for the benefit of the conjugal after being placed in possession of the property. hence. the conjugal partnership is liable for full payment. the appellate of proving that the conjugal partnership of the court considered the RMOA executed by Arturo in spouses Martinez benefited from the transaction. 1982 until subject property and not to offer the same to any fully paid. there is no transaction cannot by itself be deemed an showing that the second check was issued as obligation for the benefit of the conjugal payment for the earnest money on the property. the husband does not act for the benefit ISSUE: of the conjugal partnership as the benefit is Whether or not there was a contract of sale clearly intended for a third party. 2004. we ruled that. Petitioner sought reconsideration but it was to protect his interest. made an annotation in the denied.

supposition that the parties only disposed of their incapacity of Ernesto Jardeleza. and Gilda L. et. assumption of respective shares in the property. court-appointed guardian to administer said properties and guardianship be in favour of Gilda Ruling of Supreme Court Ledesma Jardeleza.. Upon sold .. trial third persons. Sr. Hence. 1) declaring Ernesto Jardeleza. Sr. to be incapacitated and unable to Sale/Mortgage of properties of the participate in the administration of conjugal properties. Iloilo. Jardeleza averred conjugal assets does not vest until the liquidation the physical and mental incapacity of her of the conjugal partnership. it Relevant Dates: cannot be prosecuted in accordance with the -March 25. Sr. Branch 32 of the R. Ernesto WON petitioner Gilda L. Sr. 4691. wife of Dr.June 20. GR No. there was a need for a parcel of land with its improvements. of Iloilo bind the conjugal partnership without the City issued an Order (Annex C) finding the husband’s consent. this petition. Ernesto Jardeleza. the sale. their judgment. Otherwise. As such. the disposition or encumbrance rendered its decision. Gilda sold the to the senior Jardeleza spouses was about to be property to her daughter and son in law. She also alleged that her property of the conjugal partnership without the husband’s medical treatment and hospitalization wife’s consent. Ernesto Jardeleza.T.. 1991. court found that subject spouse was incompetent who was in a comatose condition and with a -June 13. assume sole powers of administration of their cannot validly alienate or encumber any real conjugal properties. 4691 to be sufficient in law. the petitioner Gilda L. The law is explicit that the wife cannot . assumption purpose of financial need in the personal. shall be void.T. 109557. Jardeleza as the wife of Jardeleza. to dispose of their Jardeleza filed a motion for reconsideration of the conjugal property in favor of co-petitioners. petition for guardianship of the person and properties of Ernesto Jardeleza. who was then confined for intensive habet. Branch 32 of the RTC of Iloilo City without which. The rule on Sr. Sr.. and authorization to sell the same.T. Jardeleza. void assume sole powers of administration of their conjugal properties. the right of properties. reversing that Petitioners Action: of the Regional Trial Court. 47337 issued in Facts: the names of Ernesto Jardeleza. She signified to the court her desire to as administrator of the conjugal partnership. accumulating to several of any property belonging to the conjugal hundred thousands of pesos already. herein petitioner Teodoro declaring void the special proceedings instituted Jardeleza. 1991.C. No. of Iloilo City. Jardeleza to of the spouses. 3) authorizing aforesaid petitioner to sell Lot No. and 12. in view of the comatose Opposition to the proceedings before Branch 32 condition of her husband. is still void. The petitioner averred therein that the present Issue: physical and mental incapacity of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza. Hence. He propounded the argument that the daughter and son in law. petition. situated in Iloilo City and covered by TCT No. -On July 3. being unaware and not knowing that a therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner decision has already been rendered filed his Gilda L. 1991. et. SC ruled in favor of Teodoro. for the ostensible petition for declaration of incapacity. is provisions on summary proceedings set out in suffering of a stroke which left him comatose and Article 253 of the Family Code. may assume sole powers of administering his properties. Sr. requires the written consent of the other spouse. no summary proceedings does not apply to cases property of Dr. 1991.. regarding the declaration of law provides that wife who assumes sole powers 11 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . Sr. and setting the hearing In all instances. prevent him from competently Ernesto Jardeleza. of sole powers of administration. al.June 14. partnership without the conformity of the husband. 2000 4291 of the Cadastral Survey of Iloilo. Jardeleza diagnosis of brain stem infract. the wife cannot dispose expenses were piling up. respondent Gilda L. Nemo dat qui non husband. Proc. herein petitioner Teodoro with the approval of the court. It was further prayed that in the meantime. Ernesto Jardeleza. November 29. 1991. before Branch 32 of the proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court. Background: The case is an appeal via certiorari Jardeleza and the buildings standing thereof. 1991. No one can give what he has not. sole powers of administration of conjugal assuming that it exists. form and substance. Similarly. be where the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated negotiated.C. upon Ruling of Court of Appeal learning that one piece of real property belonging During the pendency of the motion. mortgaged or otherwise alienated to or incompetent to give consent. from the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution denying reconsideration. al.C. medical care and treatment at the Iloilo Doctors The husband. Branch 32 and -On June 24. vs. of Iloilo the appeal by Teodoro. except in cases provided by petition in Spec. conjugal partnership needs the consent 2) authorizing petitioner Gilda L. the husband or the wife to one-half of the Therein. even if he is statutorily designated Hospital. petitioners husband. RTC denied the bereft of any motor or mental faculties. Branch 25 of the lower court. or authority of the court for the disposition or Ruling of RTC encumbrance of conjugal partnership property . the herself filed a petition docketed as Special proper remedy is a judicial guardianship Proceeding NO. and in order to administration of the conjugal property under prevent the loss and dissipation of the Jardelezas Article 124 of the Family Code and dispose of a real and personal assets. filed a petition before the R. hence appealed to CA -June 6. Sr. Jose Uy. In this case. 1991 Teodoro Jardeleza(son). The R. the present law specifically thereof for June 20. and authority to business and medical expenses of her sell the conjugal properties was essentially a incapacitated husband. CA reversed the decision City. 1991. CA. Dr. Sr.

SC Title No. 2001 Decision of the Court of vest in Pedro any authority to alienate the subject Appeals (CA) which affirmed in toto the January property without the consent of respondent. Spouses Bautista is not authorized by Berlina. property covered by the said Transfer Certificate 19. determine the seller’s title and capacity to transfer any interest in the property. 2001 Decision. (1) the seller is the registered owner of Berlina in his favor. then the law itself puts the buyer on notice and obliges A civil case in RTC Valenzuela (Branch 71) for the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence annulment of Dead of Absolute Sale and TCT No. If the proof of purchasers in good faith and for value having capacity consists of a special power of attorney relied upon a SPA which appears legal. and. being a forgery. Sale over the said parcel of land in favor of (3) at the time of the sale. under the names of Spouses Bautista on March 4. (2) the latter is in possession thereof. Bautista vs. the deed of sale (RTC) and the February 27. he must show Motion for Reconsideration. Any absence on one or two of the foregoing. 1988. 1980 in their degree of proof of good faith. and that consequently the Deed of into the title of Pedro but also into his capacity to Absolute Sale executed by Pedro in favor of sell. explore beyond the four corners of the title. 1995 Decision of the Regional Trial Court Absent such marital consent. On March 3. 2003 CA Resolution was a nullity. After the person in the property or of any defect or execution of sale. Silva null required of judicial guardians. a person dealing with land registered reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of suit. denied the or Article 124 of the Family Code. Pedro. and void on the ground of lack of due process. petitioners knew that Berlina RULING OF THE RTC: was in Germany at the time they were buying the property and the SPA relied upon by petitioners 12 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . There is no merit to petitioners’ claim that they are purchasers in good faith. valid and duly notarized. The extent of his inquiry depends on 1. He need not prove that were the owners of a parcel of land with a he made further inquiry for he is not obliged to Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No B-37189. 1995. the seller whose capacity to sell is restricted. Ordering respondents to reconvey the 13. the buyer husband is null and void must show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its RULING OF THE SC: execution. by scrutinizing the certificate of title and V-27655 and Reconveyance and Damages was examining all factual circumstances in order to filed by Berlina against Spouses Bautista.of administration has the same powers and duties On January 10. The SPA. and not the and void and the resulting Transfer Certificate of summary judicial proceedings under FC. TCT No B-37189 was cancelled restriction in the title of the seller or in his and in lieu thereof. executed a Deed of Absolute the land. In the present case.00 in the concept of good faith. 2003. a buyer of registered and titled FACTS: land need only show that he relied on the face of Spouses Berlina Silva and Pedro Silva (Pedro) the title to the property.000. Condemning the respondents to pay the To establish his status as a buyer for value in petitioner the sum of P5. in its November 21. Background: 3. Consequently. must observe the 1. 502 SCRA 334. To prove good faith. that he inquired into the latter's capacity to sell in order to establish himself as a buyer for value in ISSUE: good faith. Whether the nullity of the deed of sale sufficient inquiry. Failure to Based on the evidence presented. 10. which denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Spouses Bautista. is names. 1988. affirmed in toto the RTC decision. mere inspection of the face of genuine on its face such public document already constitutes 2. But for a person dealing with Spouses Bautista filed an appeal with the CA land registered in the name of and occupied by which. 1988 executed by Pedro M. in the name of and occupied by the seller need only show that he relied on the face of the seller's RULING OF THE CA: certificate of title. 2. Berlina. however. the buyer was not Spouses Bautista. There was positive Appealed by Petition for Review on Certiorari and convincing evidence that respondent did not under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the sign the SPA. Such which was registered on August 14. a spouse who 71) rendered its judgement on the case filed by desires to sell real property as administrator of Berlina against Spouses Bautista stating: the conjugal property. B-37189 reinstated. TCT No. The petitioners are not buyers in good faith. in a such as by Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code Resolution dated February 27. the RTC also exercise such degree of precaution makes him a found that the signature appearing on the Special buyer in bad faith. thru a Special sufficient only when the following conditions Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by concur. Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated procedure for the sale of the ward’s estate March 3. If no such special power of includes the one half share of the husband gratia attorney is provided or there is one but there argument (for the sake of argument) that the SPA appear flaws in its notarial acknowledgment mere is a forgery and the deed of sale executed by the inspection of the document will not do. Silva. Power of Attorney (SPA) as that of Berlina is a petitioners must show that they inquired not only forgery. V-27655 was issued capacity to convey title to the property. the RTC Valenzuela (Branch as a guardian. To prove good faith then. did not November 21. Sept. WON petitioners are considered as the proof of capacity of the seller. 2006 of Title No. V-2765 of Valenzuela Registry in the further held that such incapacity of the trial court name of Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista to provide for an opportunity to be heard is null cancelled and that Transfer Certificate of Title No. at the time of sale was aware of any claim or interest of some other in Germany working as a Nurse. V-2765 together with the improvements thereon to the petitioner.

al. 2001 and ordinary prudence. authorizing Ma. There being no notarial seal. Elena a retain the portion of Pedro Silva in the subject court order authorizing her to sell the properties property. they should first have Resolution dated February 27. • Ma. No. It observed that they had appeared property and not just the share of the wife. Since forged and that the SPA had been executed the sale was executed on March 18. among signature of the notary public on the certificate others. 2010 COURT OF APPEALS CASE FACTS: • On March 18. Despite this and 1) Whether or not Article 173 of the Civil Code other past issues related to the property. Elena. who ratified. brother of Dionisio. and that the sale was void 14. the provisions of the Family Code shall apply. • On April 15. 1991 after during his absence from the country. These powers do not include subject lots. September 1. Aggabaos was a copy of the special power of and that the RTC correctly found the SPA to be a attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Dionisio forgery. in her favor was validly made to merely voidable but void. the RTC rejected the defense of the banner of good faith. it could not be the vendees (the spouses Aggabaos). despite the showing by the 1) Article 173 of the Family Code was already husband that his signature on the SPA had been repealed by Article 254 of the Family Code. Ma. The spouses later learned that Certiorari) the said copy was in the custody of Atty.. The HELD: SPA was only a photocopy and did not contain The RTC declared that the SPA in the hands of Ma. against the petitioners on July 12. without the consent of the husband was not Dionisio Parulan. 1991. 2) Whether or not the petitioners are in good faith Parulan. by presenting prudence to inquire into the wife’s authority to a special power of attorney to sell (SPA) sell. Elena did not turn over the duplicate owners’ copy of TCT# 63376 of one of the lots to SUPREME COURT CASE (Petition for Review on the petitioners. The a lawyer before buying the property. Jr. The petitioners also SUSTAINED the decision of the CA. Jr. based on its finding. apply to the sale of the conjugal property executed without the consent of Dionisio. 1991. pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code. the Elena was a forgery. the petition is hereby DENIED. Aggabao administration of the conjugal properties. that Dionisio had been out of the country was incomplete making it a mere private at the time of the execution of the SPA. declaration of the nullity of the deed of absolute sale and the cancellation of the title issued to the SC DECISION: petitioners by virtue thereof. The two parcels of land subject of the sale were part of HELD: the conjugal property of the estranged couple Ma. allegedly acted in good faith and paid the full purchase price. 165803. 2003 of the Court obtained the owners duplicate copies of the TCTs of Appeal are AFFIRMED. an absolute sale of land CA DECISION: AFFIRMED the decision of was executed between Ma. document in which petitioners cannot foist as a Moreover. Jeremy Parulan. It is well-settled that the nullity of sale similar to the order that the Los Baos Rural Bank of conjugal property contracted by the husband had required before accepting the mortgage of without the consent of the wife affects the entire the property. the petitioners cannot prudence. 1991. Elena Parulan and the the RTC. Elena. the and not Article 124 of the Family Code should spouses fully paid the lots to Ma. In the absence of such authority or 13 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . Among the applied because Dionisio had not consented to documents presented by Ma. ANNULLED the deed of sale for disposition or encumbrance without authority of want of the written consent of respondent the court or the written consent of the other husband Dionisio Parulan. hence. notarial seal. HELD: MAIN ISSUE: The vendees were not buyers in good faith. Dionisio through Atty. the effectivity of the Family Code.. who also had an SPA ISSUES: authorizing him to sell the lots. Whether the sale of conjugal property made by because they did not exercise the necessary respondent wife. that with Decision dated November 21. the against co-defendant Ma. et. Spouses Aggabao vs. Gr. before paying the full amount of the consideration. including demanding from Ma. We hold that the sale of conjugal property purportedly executed by respondent husband. Elena to the the sale of the conjugal property by Ma. Thus the proper REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CASE (Parulan vs law is Article 124 of the Family Code which Aggabao) provides that: RTC DECISION: “…In the event that one spouse is incapacitated IN FAVOR of Dionisio Parulan without prejudice to or otherwise unable to participate in the any action that may be filed by the Sps. Dionisio Parulan.has a defective notarial acknowledgement. spouse. filed their own action for specific performance DENIED the petition for review on certiorari. petitioners that they were buyers in good faith because of their failure to exercise ordinary As to the second issue. to be in a hurry to consummate the transaction despite the broker’s advice that they first consult WHEREFORE. spouses Rex and Concepcion Aggabao. Elena Parulan. CA opined that Article 124 of the Family Code Elena Parulan and Dionision Parulan. Elena to sell the property. commenced a civil action praying for the at the time of their purchase of the property. Elena Parulan for the other spouse may assume sole powers of amounts they paid her for the purchase of the administration.

No. 2. it shall be forfeited in favor of the community. The petitioner is saying that since the property in accordance with the provisions of Article 176 of relations between the spouses is governed by the the Civil Code. Code. Butuan City. or when the same are void. in order to acquaint themselves with the computation of “net profits” earned in the possible defects in her title. them to act with the diligence of a prudent person. Ruling of RTC: the petitioner never questioned the trial court’s RTC held that the phrase “NET PROFIT EARNED” ruling forfeiting what the trial court termed as denotes “the remainder of the properties of the “net profits. First. their only prudent course of RATIO: action was to investigate whether respondent had 1. since at the time of the dissolution of the spouses’ marriage the operative law is already Facts: the Family Code. only to show that he has relied on the face of the certificate of title to the property. the petitioner filed circumstances and evidence warrant after the before the RTC a Motion for Clarification. community or Art 129 on dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains is applicable in this case. Brigido’s share. In lieu of liabilities is concerned is Article 129 of the Family Resolution defining the net profits subject of the Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family forfeiture as a result of the decree of legal Code. it ought to be plain enough to the petitioners no other provision under the Family Code which that the issue was whether or not they had defines net profits earned subject of forfeiture as diligently inquired into the authority of Ma. default rule is that In the absence of marriage settlements. 176556.R. for he is not The petitioner claims that the court a quo is required to explore beyond what the certificate wrong when it applied Article 129 of the Family indicates on its face. as to which ISSUES: there was no doubt. RTC rendered a decision declaring the the Civil Code. No. held that after determining the remainder of the 3. of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership is forfeited in In the present case. or alternatively.” pursuant to Article 129(7) of the parties after deducting the separate properties of Family Code. shall govern the property relations between husband and wife. process and such deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence. Quiao Partnership of Gains. in this case. Whether Art 102 on dissolution of absolute with the petitioners. (2) 2) It is true that a buyer of registered land needs and 43.” properties of the parties. – What was required of them by the appellate Art 129 will govern. he was well-aware the offending spouse. the authorized his wife to sell the property.” It further being deprived of his right to due process. 2012 Second. July 4. that the respondent prayed in her complaint that all of the conjugal properties be awarded to her. the husband and the wife become 14 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . Branch 1. Is the computation of “net profits” earned in should have led them to inquire and to the conjugal partnership of gains the same with investigate. Elena a result of legal separation. the petitioner prayed that and appeal within the period 270 days later or the trial court divide the community assets after more than nine months from the between the petitioner and the respondent as promulgation of the Decision. the Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership's system of relative community or conjugal Assets and Liabilities partnership of gains as established in this Code. however. the petitioner was accorded favor of the common children because Brigido is his right to due process. the disposition or encumbrance shall be common children because the offending spouse void…” does not have any right to any share of the net profits earned. Quiao vs. which the SC affirms. Neither party filed a motion for reconsideration In fact. when the decision for legal separation was promulgated. No. the petitioner cannot claim each [of the] spouse and the debts.consent. Quiao. He confusingly argues that Article 102 applies because there is Yet. in his Answer. not whether or not the TCT had been valid and authentic. the petitioner acquired vested rights Rita C.” he may lose the same if there is due unpaid conjugal liabilities. separation in accordance with the provision of Article 102(4) of the Family Code. to convey the property. regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains under the Civil Code. pursuant to Article 143 of (Brigido). asking accounting and inventory of all the community the RTC to define the term “Net Profits Earned. Quiao (Rita) filed a complaint for legal over half of the properties of the Conjugal separation against petitioner Brigido B. court. Thus. When a couple enters into a regime of absolute properties. instead of Article 102. Whether the offending spouse acquired vested investigate as any prudent vendee should the rights over½of the properties in the conjugal authority of Lolita to sell the property and to bind partnership– NO. the same applies in the instant This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The case and the applicable law in so far as the petitioner seeks to set aside the Regional Trial liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and Court (RTC). Thus the SC cannot side 1. (2) of the Family Code. The law requires absolute community? NO. First. the partnership. They had knowledge of facts that 3. was merely to 2.” remaining properties shall be divided equally between the spouses subject to the respective While one may not be deprived of his “vested legitimes of the children and the payment of the right. 15. G. Second. pursuant to Articles 63. since the spouses were married prior to indeed given his consent to the sale and the promulgation of the current family code. which provides: “All property of legal separation thereby awarding the custody of the conjugal partnership of gains is owned in their 3 minor children in favor of Rita and all common by the husband and wife.

discussions. the Sandiganbayan. a clinical foregoing provision. marriage stating that . of the nullity of the marriage as well as the Thus. what will be hurt him. In this case. Rather. may file with the Supreme Court a verified (respondent) were childhood friends and petition for review on certiorari.A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE Acting on the Motion for Clarification dated July 7. Nedy L. since the trial court found the petitioner the guilty party. and had abandoned the parties have established. Diño (petitioner) and Ma. each of the couple has his psychologist. Caridad L. petitioner and respondent decided to live together again. equally or in the proportion give love and support to him.A party 16. January 19. and those acquired during the marriage (except those excluded under Article 92 of the On 30 May 2001. submitted a psychological report and her own property and debts. No. Tayag). like in that the decree of annulment shall only be issued the absolute community regime. deeply ingrained in her system since her early it establishes a complete separation of capitals. modified the previous ruling with respect to the WHEREFORE. irrespective of the her responsibility to the family. On the other hand. Article142 of the Civil Code. Dr. that Article 36 of the Family Code. married before Mayor Vergel Aguilar of Las Piñas Whatever property each spouse brings into the City. Ma. “the husband and the wife place in common fund the fruits of their On 30 April 2002. marriage. Diño vs. petitioner filed an action for Family Code) form the common mass of the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against couple’s properties.joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. or that respondent failed in her marital obligation to their respective heirs. when a couple enters into a respondent married a certain Manuel V. Alain M. 178044. choosing instead value each one may have originally owned. Petitioner alleged common mass is divided between the spouses. upon the dissolution facts of collusion between the parties and the of the marriage or of the partnership. this petition for review by certiorari Exclusive Cohabitation of Capacitated Ruling of the CA: Persons Without Marriage.” And since the legal separation½share Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a decision of Brigido states that the in the net petition for divorce/dissolution of her marriage profits shall be awarded to the children. the Order dated liquidation. In 1996. pursuant to Article 63(2) of the absolute community of property and the ruling Family Code. formative years. the Decision of the Regional Trial dissolution of the absolute community of Court. distinctly set forth. desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment GR. And when the couple’s respondent. lest we be confused. Caridad L. 2011 or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals. to go on shopping sprees and gallivanting with her friends that depleted the family assets. Hence. Brigido with petitioner. ordinarily. On 14 January 1998. 50 and 51 of the Family Code. what remains in the above-listed dissolution of the property regime – absolute properties should be divided equally between the community of property – with respect to Article spouses and/or their respective heirs. Tayag (Dr. there is nothing to Ruling of the RTC: return to any of them. 2007 of the Regional Trial Court is parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family hereby CLARIFIED in accordance with the above Code. since it was already nature. Diño law. and divide equally. incurable. Branch 1 of Butuan City is AFFIRMED. NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after 2006 in the Regional Trial Court. they were Issue: 15 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . partition and distribution of the January 8. Superior Court of California on 25 May 2001. nothing will be upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the returned to the guilty party in the conjugal Family Code. The petitioner here invoke Rule 45 of the Rule in Civil Procedure under a Void Marriage which is about the Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court which provides that . divided equally between them is simply the “net profits. Again. assuming arguendo that Art 102 is Petitioner further alleged that respondent was not applicable. regime of conjugal partnership of gains under Alcantara. citing psychological incapacity under marriage or community is dissolved. because there is no separate property which may be accounted for in the guilty The RTC partially granted the motion and party’s favor. which was granted by the will still be left with nothing. established by the trial court that the spouses have no separate properties. the Office of the Las Piñas separate property and income from their work or prosecutor found that there were no indicative industry. They started living together in 1984 raise only questions of law which must be until they decided to separate in 1994. The listed properties above The RTC granted the petition for the declaration are considered part of the conjugal partnership. Diño. partnership regime. Tayag found that respondent’s disorder was long-lasting and by In the instant case. However. since it has been established that the faithful. his share from the net profits of the Petitioner filed a motion for partial conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the common children. The law does establishing that respondent was suffering from not intend to effect a mixture or merger of those Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was debts or properties between the spouses. the net case was set for trial on the merits. gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the marriage. the Regional Trial Facts: Court or other courts whenever authorized by Alain M. and would at times become violent and spouses have no separate properties. The petition shall sweethearts. Cohabitation No ruling of the CA in this case.” From the Dr. Petitioner also learned that on 5 October 2001.

The RTC granted the petition of the said discovered ART. It was only when properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. governed by the rules on co-ownership. Juan Sevilla Salas. Aguila. and likewise find the contention unmeritorious. On both Salas and Rubina's contention that 2. Their union is without the benefit of marriage. because there is a strong Code applies to the property relations between presumption that it is valid and regularly issued. When a man and a woman who are properties that are among the conjugal properties capacitated to marry each other. but because he was not well. but Aguila Ruling of the Supreme Court: found the Discovered Properties only on 17 April The court affirmed the decision of the RTC with a 2007 or before the promulgation of the RTC modification that that the decree of absolute decision. partition. In the absence of proof to the contrary. Thus. married to Rubina or their marriage is void. we held that Article 147 of the In 2007. stating that they have “no conjugal or of an officer thereof may. They live exclusively with each other as Rubina owns the Discovered Properties. She in equal shares and the property acquired by both claims that she authorized her brother to of them through their work or industry shall be purchase the same. properties whatsoever”. 16 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . Aguila gave has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. and distribution of the Ruling of the CA: parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. and shall be owned by The RTC found that Salas failed to prove his them in equal shares. The RTC further held that consisted in the care and maintenance of the Salas and Rubina were at fault for failing to family and of the household. Aguila filed a petition for nullity of disposition of property in the custody of the court marriage. C. Article 147 of the Family Code provides: Rubina is Salas’ common-law wife. live exclusively to be partitioned and distributed between Salas with each other as husband and wife without the and Aguila. partition. if they were not married as they court erred when it ordered that a decree of claimed. Rubina intervened that Salas supported Rubina's statement that she owns the Discovered 17. in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of Furthermore. Family Code. the CA concluded that Aguila was nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon palpably mistaken in her petition and it would be finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting unfair to punish her over a matter that she had for the liquidation. No. with leave of court. versed with legal documentation. Salas did not initially dispute the marriage shall be issued only after liquidation. Issue: For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply. acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint Ruling of the RTC (Second Ruling) efforts. properties married to Rubina C. The CA Code. allegation that Aguila transferred the Waived a party who did not participate in the acquisition Properties to third persons. The RTC emphasized by the other party of any property shall be that it cannot go beyond the TCTs. we husband and wife. Eden Villena Properties. Salas left in the success of either of the parties. Salas. A Torrens title is generally All these elements are present in this case and a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the there is no question that Article 147 of the Family land referred to. The CA pointed out that the petition was filed on 7 October 2003. or birth to their daughter. ruled that Aguila’s statement in her petition is not a judicial admission. Facts: she has no right to intervene in this case. After this declaration. the RTC rendered a decision declaring Family Code applies to the union of parties who the nullity of marriage. ownership of the Discovered Properties in his partition and distribution of the parties’ opposition to the manifestation. TCTs state that "Juan S. For purposes of this Article. work or industry. the Whether Rubina owns the Discovered Properties following elements must be present: 1. benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. G. or an their conjugal dwelling and since then no longer interest against both. petitioner and respondent. Salas”. Diño. but whose discovered two properties belonging to Salas. 2013 Considering that Rubina failed to prove her title or her legal interest in the Discovered Properties. However. be allowed to intervene in the action. Salas. and distribution of no knowledge of at the time she made the the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the admission. The phrase "married to" is merely descriptive of We agree with petitioner that the trial court erred the civil status of the registered owner. Rubina filed a Complaint-in. Jr. Salas”. Five months after. In adversely affected by a distribution or other 2003. claiming that the Discovered their wages and salaries shall be owned by them Properties are her paraphernal properties. or is so situated as to be communicated with Aguila or their daughter. married to Rubina C. absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation.The sole issue in this case is whether the trial correct the TCTs.R. he registered the properties in the name of “Juan S. Josan Jiselle. The man and the woman must be capacitated Ruling of the Supreme Court: to marry each other." In Diño v. No. 202370. are legally capacitated and not barred by any Aguila filed a manifestation stating that she impediment to contract marriage. “Juan S. Salas" is the registered owner of the Discovered Properties. The Juan Salas and Eden Aguila were married in Rules of Court provide that only "a person who September 1985. The 3. The marriage is nonetheless declared void under registered owner of the Discovered properties is Article 36 of the Family Code. as in this case. Salas. which state deemed to have contributed jointly in the that Salas is the registered owner of the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts Discovered Properties. 147. September 23. Vs. Intervention.

Salas did not Plaintiff. Angela. the partition of the Discovered settlement was reached by the parties. has no sum of P5. including the would be governed by co-ownership. as found by both the RTC and the CA. we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 16 March 2012 and the 1. Mandaue City under tax dec. property acquired incapacitated and they had to talk things over during the marriage is prima facie presumed to and the latter replied that it was not yet the time have been obtained through the couple's joint to talk about the matter. without the consent of the other. During their marriage they acquired real properties and all improvements 4. administering the same in accordance with the and Roberta. Nicolas suffered a stroke and cannot talk after the termination of their cohabitation. Nicolas Retuya. Court of Appeals. 1985 and until the present. No. hence. Pacita Villanueva. Villanueva et. defendant Nicolas Retuya no longer lived reconvey that certain building of strong materials with his legitimate family and cohabited with located at Tipolo. is the legal wife account and turnover all proceeds or rentals or of defendant Nicolas Retuya. counsel. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to In 1945. In a similar case where Captain for reconciliation/mediation but no the ground for nullity of marriage was also settlement was reached. Ordering the transfer of the sole administration of conjugal properties of the spouses Eusebia Retuya and Nicolas Retuya in accordance with 18. Mandaue City now in the name of defendant Also.00 by way of Defendant. February 1994 in favor of Eusebia.000. Salome. each vacant share shall illegitimate children who has been receiving the belong to the respective surviving descendants. Ordering the City Assessor’s Office of Mandaue parcels of land in Mandaue City. April 14. acquired during cohabitation and owned in common. Cebu. and Consolacion. 30 illegitimate family asking for settlement but no Accordingly. judgment of this Court. thereof and until he shall have ceased namely. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of P50. Art. such share shall Retuya went to Procopio to negotiate because at belong to the innocent party. Ordering defendant Procopio Villanueva to Plaintiff Eusebia Napisa Retuya. She told defendant. reconvey the parcel of land situated at Tipolo. 2004 Eusebia Napisa Retuya. Mandaue City. wherein defendant. Ruling of the RTC: ownership and not on the regime of conjugal The trial court rendered its Decision on 16 partnership of gains. Witness Natividad In the absence of descendants. then. Nicolas. Declaring the properties listed in paragraph 2 Resolution dated 28 June 2012 of the Court of of the amended complaint as conjugal properties Appeals in CA-G. 01450 and parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he transfer the same into the names of the conjugal inherited from his parents Esteban Retuya and partners Eusebia N. until In 1985. Napoleon. 01450 into the names of Eusebia Retuya and Procopio Villanueva.R.. In all cases.Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts occupation. but on the basis of co. City to cancel tax declaration No. is co-owner of a Pacita Villanueva under tax dec. defendant. In case of default of or on January 27. we held that the issued a certification to file action. cohabitation. 7. 01450 in the name of Pacita Villanueva and direct the issuance Some of these properties above-mentioned earn of a new title and tax declaration in the names of income from coconuts and the other lands/houses Eusebia Napisa Retuya and Nicolas Retuya. (Emphasis supplied) Procopio that their father was already Under this property regime. then. the said official psychological incapacity. vs. G. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to situated in Mandaue City.000. the this time their father Nicolas was already senile forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the and has a childlike mind. 1926. No. 17 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . 124 of the Family Code to the plaintiff et. it is waiver by any or all of the common children or defendant Procopio Villanueva. through her parties. Spouses Retuya resided at Tipolo. 143286. to the defendants. al. 6. 29 In the present case. 1985 when he took over as ‘administrator’ the lawful wedlock.R. Facts: 3. anymore. No. having been income of the conjugal properties from January married to the latter on October 7. from the time she attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the started living in concubinage with Nicolas. defendant. they begot five (5) children. of the spouses plaintiff Eusebia Retuya and the defendant Nicolas Retuya. income of these properties. Pacita Villanueva. Nicolas Retuya. efforts and governed by the rules on co- ownership. was the only person who received the income of the above-mentioned properties. al. the share of the party in bad faith in because they visited him at the hospital. Retuya and Nicolas Retuya. is their illegitimate son. Natividad Retuya When only one of the parties to a void marriage is knew of the physical condition of her father in good faith. Other Kinds of Cohabitation 2. The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE. complained to the Barangay rebut this presumption. From the the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of time defendant Nicolas Retuya suffered a stroke their common children. one of Nicolas’ their descendants. Balbina Solon as well as the purchasers of hereditary shares of approximately eight (8) 5. Natividad. Properties as ordered by the RTC and the CA should be sustained. CV No.00 plus the costs. are leased. Out of 27. she had no properties of her own inter vivos of his or her share in the property from which she could derive income. Written properties acquired during the union of the demands were made by plaintiff. cannot walk anymore and they have to raise him up in order to walk. 95322.

and Socorro had substituted her pursuant to the resolution of the a son named Edilberto. Appeals eventually upheld the Decision of the trial court but deleted the award of attorney’s Socorro had a prior subsisting marriage to Crispin fees. Ventura. alleging that the sales were fraudulent as Family Code. the Vitas and Delpan acquired from 7 October 1926. as husband and wife. The Family establishments at 903 and 905 Delpan St. Issue: Whether or not Esteban and Socorro were co- Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that woners of the Delpan and Vitas properties. even for a long period. the date of Nicolas properties are not conjugal. The burden of proof is on the party marriage by Socorro to Crispin. Petitioners keep law at the time the two were married. on the other hand. Abletes”. are still presumed Art. who was the father of Court of Appeals dated 7 April 1997. the presumption is that they are Evangeline countered that because of the prior conjugal. This is Esteban was null and void.. Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern Manila. Esteban’s prior marriage. she was never a co-owner thereof. her marriage to claiming that they are not conjugal. acquired during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal. and are governed by and Eusebia’s marriage. Eusebia Retuya are conjugal. Both of them had children from the Court of Appeals. The Court of Edilberto U. Bonifacio Street. The and she or her heirs cannot claim any right over marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia continued to the properties exist regardless of the fact that Nicolas was already living with Pacita. When a man and a woman live together conjugal. Issues: 1. Whether or not properties acquired during the In 1968.Ruling of the Court of Appeals: Socorro Torres and Esteban Abletes were married Petitioners appealed the trial court’s decision to on 9 June 1980. This WHEREFORE. to wit: the date of Eusebia’s death. vs. but they are not married. represented by Leonora filed a petition prejudice to vested rights already acquired under for annulment of deeds of sale before the RTC of the Civil Code or other laws. tax declarations covering the subject properties. the legal spouse. Jr. Eusebia’s heirs Evangeline Abuda (Evangeline). thus the subject properties were in fact acquired entitling Edilberto as heir of Socorro to a share of during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia. Leonora. the 19. until 23 November 1996. the decision dated February 16. all property According to the RTC-Manila. through their work or industry or their wages and 202932. It also belaboring this point in their petition and applied Ninal vs. award of attorney’s fees of P50. Manila.R. 144. Thus. 4854 of the Civil Code. marriage was not annulled.00 is deleted. Articles 144 and 485 of the Civil Code. October 23.. establish this fact. The Vitas and Delpan properties were person. This issue is easily resolved. if the properties are acquired during Esteban’s signature in the deeds were forged. The Facts Art.000. shall be 18 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . Ventura. Esteban acquired one-half of a lot existence of the marriage of Nicolas Retuya and situated in 2492 State Alley. hence. which was the governing property of Nicolas and Eusebia. does not sever the not conjugal. the applicable rule was Article was acquired. Evangeline also alleged that she and 152. In 2000. the marriage. the RTC determined that they were act that is both illegal and immoral. When Esteban died. G. Tondo. Hence. while Socorro effectivity of Family Code. detriment of Eusebia. Article 105 of the died in 1999. in the benefits as well as in the charges. Socorro married Crispin on 18 April 1952. was dissolved by virtue of his wife’s death in 1960. Otherwise. established before the Family Code without The latter. along with the unrebutted testimony of Eusebia’s witnesses. and Crispin was alive 1994 is AFFIRMED with the modification that the at the time of Socorro’s marriage to Esteban. Socorro and counter-balanced by the requirement that the her heirs may not claim any right or interest over properties must first be proven to have been the properties she and her father acquired. which they claim is Pacita’s exclusive her father operated small business property. or their marriage is void from the beginning. 152 Esteban were void. The Ruling of the RTC-Manila The RTC ruled in favour of Evangeline and Petitioners further argue that since Nicolas and Paulino. 141782) was released in Petitioners claim that the subject properties are 1980. 2013 salaries shall be governed by the rules on co- ownership. under the Manila. Applying the foregoing the law would be giving a stamp of approval to an provisions. Esteban died in 1997. and since Socorro did not petitioners fail to grasp is that Nicolas and contribute any funds to the acquisition of the Pacita’s cohabitation cannot work to the properties.the petitioner in this case. Thereafter. Edilberto’s Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family mother discovered the sale of the properties to Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships Evangeline. No. What properties of Esteban. Tondo. while Evangeline bought the other half for her father in 1970. Jr. the lot cannot be deemed conjugal 831 of the Civil Code. Badayog2 ratiocinating that no memorandum. prior judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is needed in order to establish the nullity of the The cohabitation of a spouse with another marriage. Since the marriage of Socorro and Pacita were already cohabiting when Lot No. When the title Ruling: to the property (TCT No. Vitas. and governed by Articles 1443 and tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Edilberto U. Spouses property acquired by either or both of them Paulino & Evangeline Abuda. The the properties. The share of the co-owners. 485. which she then relayed to Edilberto. Eusebia died on 23 prior marriages: Esteban had a daughter named November 1996. the Vitas and Delpan the property relations between Nicolas and properties was sold to Evangeline and her Eusebia even if they were married before the husband. it was registered in the name of “Esteban exclusive properties of Nicolas except for Lot No. ruling in this wise: Roxas (Crispin) when she married Esteban.

The Ruling of this Court • During their marriage. as x x x only the properties acquired by both of the determined by the pleadings or the nature of the parties through their actual joint contribution of case. court has no jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation.R. Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is Aggrieved. the Vitas and proceeding – considering that a thorough Delpan properties can be considered common determination will have to be made as to whether property if: (1) these were acquired during the the property is conjugal or exclusive property. cohabitation of Esteban and Socorro. and applied the ruling in Saguid vs Delpan property would be owned by and CA6. money. 1238. the manner provided in the last paragraph of the • On her defense. Balcom – Tambuyat were married on September 16. and that the trial apply even if both parties are in bad faith. cohabitation or acquisition of the property occurred prior to the enactment of the Family During trial.proportional to their respective interests. party who acted in bad faith is not validly married with her as the spouse indicated. marriage of Esteban and Socorro. the real properties. their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. and thereafter lived together as married couple. Edilberto failed to provide receipts evidencing payments of the evidence that Socorro contributed to the amortizations for the Delpan property. or industry shall be owned by issued. Banguis. That a new partnership existing in such valid marriage. which requires the CA. it was made under the name of Adriano them in common in proportion to their respective M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue Banguis was still married to Nolasco. parties through their actual joint contribution of • When TCT covering the subject property was money. contrary. If one of the parties is validly married to another. and that to another. 1965. parcel of decision in the CA is affirmed. his or her share shall be forfeited in Banguis be ordered to surrender her copy of TCT. Bulacan. San Jose del Monte. x x x. Facts: Edilberto elevated the case to the Supreme Court • Adriano Tambuyat and respondent Wenifreda via a petition for review on certiorari. All this time petitioner only the properties acquired by both of the Banguis remained married to Eduardo Nolasco. even if payment of the purchase Tambuyat. which was bought on November 17. their contributions and corresponding Wenifreda filed a Petition for Cancellation of the shares are presumed to be equal. Wenifreda to the absolute community or conjugal prayed that the TCT be cancelled. and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of G. In cases of cohabitation [wherein the Rosario Banguis – Tambuyat. March 23. 2. as “Rosario Tambuyat”. Edilberto failed to show any evidence showing Socorro's alleged monetary Article 148 of the Family Code states that in contributions. including a 700 sq. 202805. m. price of the Delpan property was made by 108 of PD 1529 which states: “court authorization 19 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . which is merely a summary Applying the foregoing provision. land located at Brgy. RTC justified its decision by using Sec. contributions. Banguis claimed that she and preceding Article. debtor's consent. 2015 money and evidences of credit. The same rule subject TCT. erroneously registered and made in the name of “Adriano M. he miserably failed to do so. In this case. The same rule 20. such payment was made on behalf of stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be her father. It held that the provisions apply even if registered under the name of Esteban. but clarified Thus. property. Adriano acquired several The Supreme Court denied the petition. That the TCT was money and evidences of credit. Article 1238 of the Civil Code provides: void. If the certificate of title be made out in Adriano’s name. decision: • One of the signing witnesses was petitioner Art 148. who signed therein parties are incapacitated to marry each other]. • The RTC decided in favor of Wenifreda and directed the RD of Meycauayan to cancel the TCT Both the RTC-Manila and the CA found that the of Banguis and in lieu thereof to issue a new Delpan property was acquired prior to the certificate of title in the name of Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. She alleged that she was the and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of surviving spouse of Adriano. other hand. On the acquisition of the properties. Banguis-Tambuyat vs. As correctly pointed out by the CA: unions between a man and a woman who are [s]ettled is the rule that in civil cases x x x the incapacitated to marry each other: burden of proof rests upon the party who. Banguis.” That per annexed marriage contract. property. No. property. which the CA applied in the assailed alone as vendee. Art. that The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise their union produced a son. or industry. Muzon. asserts the affirmative of an issue. the Abuda spouses presented Code. Any Evangeline. contrary. Edilberto filed an appeal before the deemed to be a donation.[29] Tambuyat married to Wenifreda “Winnie” Balcom Furthermore. The Deed of Sale was signed by Adriano Code. But the payment is in any case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it. The Ruling of the CA The CA affirmed the RTC decision. In the absence of proof to the • When Adriano died intestate on June 7. contribution of money. and (2) and since she and Adriano have a child whose there is evidence that the properties were rights will be adversely affected by any judgment acquired through the parties’ actual joint in the case. Adriano were married on Sept. Balcom-Tambuyat. or industry shall be owned by Here it is Appellant who is duty bound to prove them in common in proportion to their respective the allegations in the complaint which contributions. This is a reiteration of Article 148 of the Family 1991. and the parties intended that the Family Code. In the absence of proof to the undoubtedly. 1988. it is clear that Evangeline paid on behalf of that the applicable law is Article 1485 of the her father. 1998.

Philippines. Thus. omission or committed and error in issuing the disputed TCT. in truth and in fact. Wenifreda’s petition for cancellation of TCT is not who represent themselves to the public as real and genuine as to place the latter’s title to husband and wife. Adriano’s lawful spouse. Tambuyat married to memorandum thereon. A man and woman not legally married court; and that Banguis’s opposition to who cohabit for many years as husband and wife. Banguis” when. or when there is reasonable ground for respondent Wenifreda – and not Banguis – is the amendment or alteration of the title. It held that the evidence spouse of Adriano. While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact that such relationships Held: YES are present in our society. mistake was made in entering a certificate or any in the name of Adriano M. As correctly ruled by the • The CA sustained the trial court’s decision. and that they produce • Under Section 108 of PD 1529.is required for any alteration or amendment of a two instances because the RD of Bulacan certificate of title when any error. or amendment of a governed by law. alteration. or on any duplicate Rosario E. The present case falls under the lawfully wedded spouse. Banguis. unless any duplicate certificate and (2) when there is expressly providing to the contrary as in Article reasonable ground for the amendment or 144. appellate court. 20 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S . husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered legally married in Issue: Whether the cancellation of the TCT filed common law jurisdictions but not in the by Wenifreda be granted by the court. certificate. included are (1) when any error. when referring to a “spouse” contemplate a alteration of title. authority exists in case law to certificate of title may be resorted to in seven the effect that such form of co ownership requires instances. it cannot be said that adduced proved that Wenifreda – and not Banguis Adriano and Banguis were husband and wife to – is the lawful wife of Adriano; that there is a valid each other; it cannot even be said that they have and subsisting marriage between Nolasco and a common law relationship at all. that the man and woman living together must not omission or mistake was made in entering a in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. the proceeding a community of properties and interests which is for the erasure. certificate or any memorandum thereon or on that the provisions of the Civil Code. and who are reputed to be the subject property in doubt. and the latter admitted to such fact • Philippine Law does not recognize common law during the course of the proceedings in the trial marriages. the preponderance of evidence noting that Banguis’ name was included in the points to the fact that Wenifreda is the legitimate TCT by error or mistake.