06 Jovellanos vs CA

G.R. No. 100728. June 18, 1992

Facts: In 1955, Daniel Jovellanos and PhilAm Life entered into a Lease and conditional sale
agreement over a house and lot located at PhilAm Life Homes, Quezon City. At this time, Daniel
was married to Leonor with whom he had 3 children (herein petitioners). Daniel promised to pay
in installments.
In 1959, Leonor died in 1967 Daniel married private respondent Annette Jovellanos, with
whom he had 2 childrem (herein respondents).
In 1975, Daniel successfully paid all the lease amounts. PhilAm Life then executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale. Thereafter, Daniel donated the title and rights over the house and lot to herein
petitioners.
Daniel died in 1985. Respondent Annette Jovellanos alleged that the property belongs to
their conjugal partnership because full ownership was acquired in 1975 during their marriage. On
the other hand, petitioners aver that the property was acquired during the first marriage of Daniel
with Leonor, when the lease and conditional sale agreement was entered.

Issue: Whether or not the property belongs to the conjugal partnership of Daniel and respondent
Annette (the second marriage)

Held: Yes.

Ruling: Upon the execution of the lease and conditional sale agreemen, Daniel Jovellanos was
only granted inchoate ownership which means he did not enjoy the full benefits of being an owner
of the property. Absolute ownership would be granted upon the full payment of all the lease rentals,
which was accomplished by Daniel Jovellanos in 1975, during the subsistence of his second
marriage. Thus, the property belongs to the conjugal partnership of Daniel and Annette.
However, pursuant to Article 118, any amount advanced by the partnership or by either
or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership.
Thus, herein respondent Annette Jovellanos should reimburse the petitioners with the lease rentals
paid out of the conjugal partnership of Daniels first marriage with Leonor.

07 Agapay vs Palang

Facts: Miguel Palang was first married to herein respondent Cornelia Palang in 1949. A few
months after the wedding, he went to Hawaii to work. He returned in 1964 and lived with her
family but in 1973, he decided to leave her wife Cornelia and cohabited with herein petitioner,
then 19-year-old Erlinda Agapay. In 1973 Miguel and Erlinda married each other.
2 months before the said marriage, Miguel and Cornelia jointly bought a parcel of
Agricultural land as evidenced by a Deed of Sale which is the subject of this case. Cornelia Palang
filed for the recovery of the property, alleging that it was part of the conjugal partnership of
Miguels first marriage. Herein petitioner Erlinda alleged that together with Miguel, they co-
owned the property, further averring that she contributed to the purchase of the land. The RTC
ruled in favor of Erlinda, and held that there was no proof that the property was part of the conjugal
partnership of Miguel and respondent Cornelia. The CA ruled otherwise. Thus, the petition.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Erlinda Agapay and deceased Miguel co-owned the subject
property
Held: No.
Ruling: Under Article 148, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual
joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion
to their respective contributions. If the actual contribution of the party is not proved, there will be
no coownership and no presumption of equal shares. Erlinda failed to prove her contribution for
the purchase and acquisition of the land. The court considered the fact that Erlinda was only around
20 years old and cannot contribute an amount worth P3,750, based on her own averments. Where
a woman who cohabited with a married man fails to prove that she contributed money to the
purchase price of a riceland, there is no basis to justify her coownership over the samethe
riceland should revert to the conjugal partnership property of the man and his lawful wife.

08 Josef vs Santos

Facts:
Herein petitioner Albino Josef was the defendant in a civil case for collection of sum of money
filed by herein respondent Otelio Santos. The case was premised on the unpaid shoe materials
which Josef bought on credit, from Santos. The RTC ruled that Josef was liable to pay Santos
P404,836.50. Because was unable to pay, through a writ of execution awarded in favor of Santos,
Josefs house, located in Marikina City, was sold by auction to satisfy his judgment credit. Thus
the petition in this case.
Petitioner alleged that he was insolvent, yet the house subject of the writ of execution was
his family home and should thus be exempted.
Issue: Whether or not the house of Josef is constituted as a family home and should be exempted
from execution
Held: Yes.
Ruling: The writ of execution was declared void and the RTC was ordered to conduct further
inquiry on the nature of the house of Josef.

The Supreme Court gave credence to the importance of a family home. The protection of the family
home is just as necessary in the preservation of the family as a basic social institution, and since
no custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect, the
trial courts failure to observe the proper procedures to determine the veracity of petitioners
allegations, is unjustified. Petitioner claimed exemption from execution of his family home soon
after respondent filed the motion for issuance of a writ of execution, thus giving notice to the trial
court and respondent that a property exempt from execution may be in danger of being subjected
to levy and sale. Thus, the petitioners filing was on time and he should not be estopped from
claiming exemption from execution of his alleged family home.
09 Sayson vs. CA

Facts: Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot 5 children, one of whom was Teodoro. Teodoro and his
wife had three children, Delia, Edmundo and Doribel. Elena and Rafaela died, leaving their
properties to their immediate heirs, their 5 children. One of their children, Teodoro, and his wife,
eventually died. The four other children of Eleno and Rafaela (herein petitioners), filed for the
partition and accounting of the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela.
However, the problem started when Delia, Edmundo and Doribel (herein respondents) also
filed their claims on the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela, alleging as children of Teodoro, and
grandchildren of Eleno and Rafaela, they have the right to represent Teodoro in acquiring the
intestate testate of their grandparents. Delia and Edmundo were legally adopted by Teodoro and
his wife, wherein a judicially decree of adoption was awarded 10 days after the birth of Doribel,
the legitimate and natural child of Teodoro and his wife.
Petitioners averred that the children acquire rights to the intestate estate of their parents
Eleno and Rafaela.
The RTC held that the legally adopted children, Delia and Edmundo, has the right of
representation, and can thus inherit from their shares of the parents of their legal adopters. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issue: Whether or not adopted children, Delia and Edmundo, has the right of representation thus
conferring to them share over the property of Eleno and Rafaela
Held: No.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that while it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a
legitimate child and have the same rights as the latter, these rights do not include the right of
representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the adopting parents and
the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relatives of either party.
In the case of Doribel, the legitimate and natural child of Teodoro and his wife, and thus,
the granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela, Doribel has a right to represent her deceased father in the
distribution of the intestate estate of her grandparents. Under Article 981, quoted above, she is
entitled to the share her father would have directly inherited had he survived, which shall be equal
to the shares of her grandparents' other children.