Borromeo v Descallar
Thus, petitioner filed a complaint against
GR 159310 | Feb. 24, 2009 | Puno
Facts:
1. Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived
in the Philippines in 1983 after he was
assigned by his employer to work on a
project in Mindoro.
2. In 1984, when he transferred to Cebu,
he met respondent Antonietta Opalla-
Descallar, a separated mother of two
boys who was working as a waitress at
St. Moritz.
3. Jambrich and respondent fell in love and
decided to live together in a rented
house in Mandaue.
4. But, later on, they transferred to their
own house and lots at Agro-marco
Subdivision. In the contracts to sell
covering the properties, Jambrich and
respondent were referred to as the
buyers. And a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated Nov. 16, 1987 was likewise issued
in their favor.
5. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale
was registered only in the name of
respondent because Jambrich is an
alien, and thus prohibited from acquiring
alienable lands of public domain.
6. On 1991, respondent found a new
boyfriends while Jambrich began to live
with another woman.
7. Sometime in 1986, Jambrich met
petitioner Borromero and the former
purchased an engine and some
accessories for his boat from petitioner,
for which he became indebted to the
latter for about P150,000.
8. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights
and interests in the Agro-Macri
properties to petitioner for 250,000.
9. When petitioner sought to register the
deed of assignment, he discovered that
the titles of three lots have been
transferred in the name of respondent,
and that subject property has already
been mortgaged.
10.
respondent for recovery of real property,
alleging that it was Jambrich alone who
paid for the properties using his
exclusive funds.
11. Respondent belied the said allegations
and stated that she used his exclusive
funds to pay the same.
Issue: Whether or not the said properties belong
to Jambrich, hence, he has the authority to
transfer all his rights over the subject properties
to petitioner.
Ruling: Yes.
The Court ruled that the fact the
disputed properties were acquired during the
couple’s cohabitation does not help the
respondent. The rule that co-ownership applies
to a man and a woman living exclusively with
each other as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage, but are otherwise
capacitated to amrry each other, does not apply.
In this case, respondent was still legally
married to another when she and Jambrich lived
together. In such an adulterous relationship, no
co-ownership exists between the parties. It is
necessary for each of the partners to prove his
or her actual contribution to the acquisition of the
property in order to be able to lay claim to any
portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and
equal contribution do not apply.
The Court held that in this case,
Jambrich had proved that it was he who had the
financial capacity to pay the purchase price of
the subject properties. And Thus, he has all the
authority to transfer all his rights, interests and
participation over the subject properties to
petitioner by virtue of the Deed of Assignment he
executed.