Persons and Family Relations

Atty. Lydia C. Galas

Josefa Ferrer vs. Manuel Ferrer

G.R. 166496 | November 29, 2006
Louie Andrei G. Jamito

FACTS: The late Alfredo Ferrer acquire a respondents as they are now the registered
piece of land. Through a loan, he owners of Alfredo’s lot.
introduced several improvements including
a residential house and a 2-door apartment ISSUE:
W/N respondents have the obligation to
building. However, it was only during his
reimburse petitioner.
marriage with petitioner Josefa that he
was only able to pay the loan using the RULING: Yes. Article 120 provides the
couple’s conjugal funds. From their solution in determining the ownership of
conjugal funds, Josefa claimed, they the improvements that are made on
constructed a warehouse on the lot. separate property of the spouses at the
Moreover, petitioner averred that expense of partnership or through acts or
efforts of either or both spouses. Thus,
respondent Manuel Ferrer occupied one
when the cost of the improvement and any
door of the apartment building, as well as resulting increase in value are more than
the warehouse; however, he stopped the value of the property at the time of
paying rentals, alleging that he had acquire improvement, the entire property of one of
ownership over the property by virtue of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal
Deed of Sale executed by Alfredo in favor partnership, subject to reimbursement of
the value of the property of the owner –
of respondents, Manuel and Ismael and
spouse at the time of the improvement;
their spouses. otherwise, the said property shall be
retained in ownership by the owner –
It is petitioner’s contention that when her
spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement
husband was already bedridden, of the cost of the improvement. The
respondents Ismael and Flora Ferrer made subject property was precisely declared as
him sign a document, purportedly to be his the exclusive property of Alfredo on the
last will and testament. The document, basis of Article 120 of the Family Code.
however, was a Deed of Sale covering
Alfredo’s lot and the improvement
thereon. Learning of this development,
Alfredo filed a Complaint for Annulment of
the said sale against respondents. The RTC
dismissed the same and ruled that the
terms and conditions of the Deed of Sale
are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, and public policy, and should be
complied with by the parties in good faith,
there being no compelling reason under
the law to do otherwise. The dismissal was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Although
the Supreme Court reaffirmed the CA’s
decision, herein petitioner filed another
case claiming that, based on the RTC
decision, when Alfredo died on 29
September 1999, or at the time of
liquidation of the conjugal partnership, she
had the right to be reimbursed for the cost
of the improvements on Alfredo’s lot. She 1
alleged that the cost of the improvements
amounted to P500,000.00; hence, one-half
thereof should be reimbursed and paid by

Persons and Family Relations | 1-Wigmore