Uy v. Lacsamana (2015) presume marriage.
However, this presumption may be contradicted by a
Petitioner: Luis Uy, substituted by 2 daughters
Respondent: Sps. Jose Lacsamana, substituted By Corazon Buena
DOCTRINE:
Persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, absent
any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact
married.
Properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed co-owned unless
there is proof to the contrary.
FACTS:
1. Uy filed with RTC Batangas a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Documents with Damages against Petra Rosca and Sps. Lacsamana.
2. Uy alleged that he was the lawful husband of Rosca, living together as
husband and wife from 1944 until 1973 (29 years) when they separated
(because of Uys alleged affair).
a. They had 8 children.
3. Subject of this case is a piece of residential land Rosca bought from Sps.
Manuel.
4. This property, together with the house Rosca built was then
subsequently sold to Sps. Lacsamana.
5. Uy alleges that the property is part of the sale of Rosca to Sps.
Lacsamana was void for failure to obtain his marital consent, the property
being conjugal in nature.
6. Uy then filed a complaint, praying that the Deed of Sale (executed by
Rosca in favor of Sps. Lacsamana) be declared null and void with
respect to his rights, interest, and ownership and damages.
a. Rosca defense: purchase of land was from her paraphernal funds
and that she was never married to Uy.
7. Upon Uys death, 2 daughters substituted. Upon Roscas death and Sps.
Lacsamanas sale of the property to Buena, Buena substituted.
8. RTC: no valid marriage between Uy and Rosca, Deed of Sale by Rosca
in favor of Lacsamana was valid; CA- affirmed RTC; MR- denied.
ISSUES: WON Deed of Sale executed by Rosca alone, without Uy's
consent, in favor of Spouses Lacsamana, is valid.
RULING + RATIO: YES. Valid Deed of Sale.
1. Validity of sale of property by Rosca alone is anchored on whether Uy
and Rosca had a valid marraige.
2. There is a presumption established in our Rules "that a man and woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio Always
party and overcome by other evidence.
3. Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence.
a. Testimony by one of the parties or witnesses, person who officiated
at the solemnization
b. Documentary evidence marriage contract
4. RTC findings Uy and Rosca not legally married.
a. In his Petition for Naturalization as a Filipino citizen filed before
CFI, Uy said, "I am married (not legally)."
b. The Sworn Statement of Batangas Governor executed in support of
the Uy's Petition for Naturalization categorically states, that Uy was
married (not legally).
c. The Immigrant Certificate of Residence - Uy also known by his
Chinese name of Uy Suan Tee, regarded himself as "single" when
filling up his civil status therein.
d. Alien Certificate
e. Affidavit of a prominent citizen of Batangas not legally married
f. Roscas testimony thay they were not legally married because
their marriage was not consummated (because of WW2)
5. With the presumption of marriage sufficiently overcome, the onus
probandi of Rosca shifted to Uy to prove the marriage but Uy failed to
present any additional proof of such.
6. Since Uy failed to discharge the burden that he was legally married to
Rosca, their property relations would be governed by Article 147 of the
Family Code which applies when a couple living together were not
incapacitated from getting married ------ co ownership of properties is
presumed unless there is proof to the contrary.
7. Rosca was able to prove that the subject property is not co-owned but is
paraphernal.
a. Land Registration Commission Resolution recognized Rosca as
sole registered owner of the property.
b. Deed of Sale with Sps. Manuel, where Uy stood as a mere witness
so he admitted the paraphernal nature of Roscas property
c. In the loan application of Rosca, affidavit of ownership stated Petra
Rosca, married to Luis G. Uy.
i. Word married to is merely descriptive of Rosca's status at the
time the property was registered in her name.
ii. Otherwise, if the property was conjugal, the title to the property
should have been in the names of Luis Uy and Petra Rosca.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the
Decision dated 14 September 2011 and Resolution dated 1 March 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93786.