Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations name was erased from the document.
name was erased from the document. Transfer Certificate of Title over the properties
Topic: Family Code of the Philippines: Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage
Relevant Article/s: Article 148 of the Family Code
In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, 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. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule
and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue
to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who
acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner
provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. (144a)
Camilo F. Borromeo v Antonietta O. Descallar
G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009
Ponente: Chef Justice Puno
Facts:
 Jambrich (Austrian) and respondent fell in love and decided to live together in a
rented house in Hernan Cortes, Mandaue City. Later, they transferred to their own
house and lots at Agro-Macro Subdivision, Cabancalan, Mandaue City.
 In the Contracts to Sell covering the properties, Jambrich, and the respondent were
referred to as the buyers. A Deed of Absolute Sale was likewise issued in their favor.
However, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the
Register of Deeds, registration was refused on the ground that Jambrich was an alien
and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain. Consequently, Jambrich’s
was issued in respondent’s name alone.
 However, the idyll lasted only until April 1991. By then, the respondent found a new
boyfriend while Jambrich began to live with another woman in Danao City. Jambrich
supported the respondent’s sons for only two months after the breakup.
 Jambrich met petitioner Camilo F. Borromeo sometime in 1986. Petitioner was
engaged in the real estate business. He also built and repaired speedboats as a
hobby.
 In 1989, Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from the
petitioner, for which he became indebted to the latter for about P150,000.00. To pay
for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to the
petitioner for P250,000, as evidenced by a "Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment."
 In July 1991, when the petitioner sought to register the deed of assignment, he
discovered that titles to the three lots have been transferred in the name of the
respondent and that the subject property has already been mortgaged.
 Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for recovery of real property before
RTC of Mandaue City. Petitioner alleged that the Contracts to Sell and the Deed of
Absolute Sale over the properties which identified both Jambrich and respondent as
buyers do not reflect the true agreement of the parties since respondent did not pay a
single centavo of the purchase price and was not, in fact, a buyer; that it was
Jambrich alone who paid for the properties using his exclusive funds; that Jambrich
was the real and absolute owner of the properties; and, that petitioner acquired
absolute ownership by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment dated July 11,
1991 which Jambrich executed in his favor.
 Respondent belied the allegation that she did not pay a single centavo of the
purchase price. On the contrary, she claimed that she "solely and exclusively used
her own personal funds to defray and pay for the purchase price of the subject lots in
question," and that Jambrich, being an alien, was prohibited to acquire or own real
property in the Philippines. At the trial, the respondent presented evidence showing
her alleged financial capacity to buy the disputed property with money from a
supposed copra business.
  Petitioner, in turn, presented Jambrich as his witness and documentary evidence
showing the substantial salaries which Jambrich received while still employed by an
Austrian Company.
 The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner.
 The CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The title of the subject property is not in
the name of Jambrich but in the name of the defendant-appellant. Thus, Jambrich
could not have transferred a property he has no title thereto.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Jambrich has title to the properties in question and may transfer and
assign any rights and interest in favor of the petitioner
Ruling/s:
authority to transfer all his rights, interest, and participation over the subject
properties to the petitioner by virtue of Deed of Assignment. Furthermore, the fact that
the disputed properties were acquired during the couple’s cohabitation does not help
the respondent because she 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 property in order to be able to lay claim to any
portion of it.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Puno, held that Jambrich has title to the
properties and may transfer any rights and interest in favor of the petitioner, hence the
petition was granted reinstating the decision of the RTC.

 YES
 Article 148 of the Family Code provides that: In cases of cohabitation not falling under
the Article 147, 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. In the absence of proof to the contrary,
their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same
rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidence of credit. If
one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership
shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid
marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or
her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of Article
147.
 In this case, the evidence clearly shows that as between respondent and Jambrich, it
was Jambrich who possesses the financial capacity to acquire the properties in
dispute. At the time of the acquisition of the properties, Jamrich was the source of
funds used to purchase the three parcels of land and to construct the house.
Jambrich was the owner of the properties in question, but his name was deleted in
the Deed of Absolute Sale because of legal constraints. Nevertheless, his signature
remained in the deed of sale where he signed as a buyer. Thus, Jambrich has all