Atienza v.

De Castro 508 S 593

ATIENZA V. DE CASTRO 508 S 593

Facts:
Lupo Atienza and Yolanda de Castro married on November 29, 2006. During their marriage,
allegedly acquired a real property and registered under the name of the wife (Yolanda). Until
such time their marriage became sour so they decided to separate. Lupo filed an action for
partition contending that they owned the said property under the concept of limited co-
ownership. Yolanda contended that she alone acquired it through her own savings as a
businesswoman.

Then Lupo filed a complaint against Yolanda for a judicial partition of a land between them in
the Bel-Air subdivision

Lupo said Yolanda bought the said property with his own funds Yolanda on the other hand said
she bought it with her own funds.

Trial Court said that the contested property is owned common by him and Yolanda and ordered
the partition into two equal parts.

CA reversed the TC! Saying that it was the exclusive property of Yolanda.

Issue: Whether or not the disputed property is the exclusive property of Yolanda

Held:

Yes, Since they are not capacitated to marry each other in their cohabitation, FC 148 applies.
Under this regime only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint
contribution shall be owned by them in proportion to their contributions. Absent of proof of
contribution, it shall be presumed to be equal. He did not show any evidence that he
contributed in the parcel of land while the accountant showed bank accounts which apparently
shows that she was capacitated to buy the said land.

Evidence of De Castro: job as accountant and businesswoman engaged in foreign currency

trading, money lending, and jewelry retail, promisorry notes of dealings with clients, bank
account statements, and business transactions = had financial capacity on the other hand
Atienza merely provided evidence that Yolanda had no such sufficient funds and didn‘t provide
for evidence regarding his own capacity to pay for such property.

Velasco, Krizza Mae F.