Villanueva vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 143286, April 14, 2004

FACTS:

 Plaintiff Eusebia Napisa Retuya, is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas Retuya.
The two were married on October 7, 1926. They begot five children during
their marriage, namely, Natividad, Angela, Napoleon, Salome, and Roberta.
They also acquired real properties and improvements in Mandaue City and
Consolation, Cebu.
 Defendant, Nicolas Retuya, is co-owner of a parcel of land situated in
Mandaue City which he inherited from his parents as well as the purchasers of
hereditary shares of approximately eight (8) parcels of land in Mandaue City,
some of which earn income and is received by the defendant.
 In 1945, defendant Nicolas Retuya no longer lived with his legitimate family
and cohabited with defendant, Pacita Villanueva, where defendand Procopio
Villanueva is their illegitimate son.
 Defendant, Pacita Villanueva, from the time she started living in concubinage
with Nicolas, has no occupation and had no properties of her own from which
she could earn income.
 In 1985 Nicolas suffered a stroke and could no longer talk or walk. As a result,
it was Procopio Villanueva, an illegitimate child, who has been receiving the
income of the properties of Nicolas.
 Natividad Retuya went to Procopio to negotiate because at this time their
father Nicolas was already senile and has a childlike mind. She told Procopio
that their father was already incapacitated and they had to talk things over and
the latter replied that it was not yet the time to talk about the matter.
 Plaintiff, then, complained to the Barangay Captain for
reconciliation/mediation but no settlement was reached, hence, the said official
issued a certification to file action. Written demands were made by plaintiff,
through her counsel, to the defendants, including the illegitimate family asking
for settlement but no settlement was reached by the parties.
 Court decided in favor of plaintiff Eusebia Napisa Retuya and declared the
properties as conjugal property of the spouses, ordered exclusive
administration of the said properties to the plaintiff, ordered Procopio to
account and turn over the proceeds from the rentals he collected and for
defendants to convey certain properties and transfer it to the names of the
spouses Eusebia and Nicolas and attorney’s fees. This was based on Article
116 of the Family Code which provided that All property acquired during the
marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or
registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed conjugal unless the
contrary is proved.
 Petitioners appealed to the CA, Eusebia died and was substituted by her heirs.
CA upheld the decision of the trial court but removed the awarding of
attorney’s fees. Hence this petition.

ISSUES:
  WON the CA erred in sustaining the declaration of the trial court that the
properties involved in the complaint are conjugal properties although this was
not one of the causes of action in the complaint.
 WON the CA erred in applying the presumption that the properties acquired
by Nicolas and Eusebia are conjugal.
 WON the CA erred in not applying instead the presumption under Art. 148 of
the Family Code in favour of co-ownership between Nicolas and Pacita.
 WON the CA erred in not declaration the action for reconveyance over one of
the properties (Lot no. 125) is already barred by prescription

HELD:

 Petition is without merit

 The first issue is without merit as the properties involved have been
maintained to be conjugal properties from the wordings of the second
paragraph of the complaint.
 On the issue of prescription and laches, while it is true that the petitioners
raised this in their answer, they however failed to have the same included in
the pre-trial order for consideration during trial. And now they wish to raise
the issue on appeal which may not be properly done. The determination of
issues during the pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions,
whether during trial or on appeal. In the current case, while they did raise it
during trial, the fact that they did not include it in the said defense among the
issues for consideration during trial which shall bar its consideration in trial
and also on appeal.
 On the issue of WON the properties are conjugal, The Family Code provisions
on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations between Nicolas and
Eusebia even if they were married before the effectivity of Family Code.
Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly states that the Family Code shall
apply to conjugal partnerships established before the Family Code without
prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws.
Thus, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the
marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal. The burden of proof is on
the party claiming that they are not conjugal.
 The question of WON the properties were acquired during the marriage is a
factual issue and has already been decided upon by the trial court and affirmed
by the CA as such.
 Since the subject properties, including Lot No. 152, were acquired during the
marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia, the presumption under Article 116 of the
Family Code is that all these are conjugal properties of Nicolas and Eusebia.
The burden is on petitioners to prove that the subject properties are not
conjugal, such burden was not overcome by the petitioners.
 The fact that some of the property was under the name of Pacita is not
indicative of her ownership as it was revealed that this was one of the schemes
Nicolas used to deprive Eusebia of the conjugal property.
 The petitioners claimed that the tax declarations were in the name of Nicolas
alone and as such proves that the properties are exclusively owned by him.
This was held by the SC to be wrong as tax declarations are not enough to
overcome the assumption based on Article 116 of the FC.
  The petitioners also claimed that since one of the properties (Lot 152) was
acquired while Nicolas and Pacita were already cohabiting will thus make it
not conjugal partnership of Nicolas and Eusebia is also without merit.
Cohabiting with another person does not sever the ties of marriage and as such
acquisition of the properties are still part of the conjugal property of the
legitimate spouses.
 Also, the petitioner’s contention that Article 148 should be applied is likewise
without merit. This is because in Article 148, the actual joint contribution by
both the live-in partners before the acquisition of the property must be shown,
such proof of Pacita’s contribution was not present in the case at bar.

Wherefore, the Petition is DENIED and the CA decision is AFFIRMED.