Attorney’s Opinion Letter

M&N
LAW

February 15, 2023

Ms. E
Corales Avenue
Cagayan de Oro City

Dear Ms. E:

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not you
can fight your right, given that you are the one who supervised the 2-storey
building construction after you have been harassed by Mrs. O claiming that she
had a better right to the building. The facts of the case are as follows:

Ms. E has been cohabiting with Mr. O for more than 20 years without the
benefit of marriage. On December 24, 2022, Mr O died, leaving Mrs. E a 2-storey
mixed use building. Just last week, Mrs. O, Mr. O’s legal wife, harassed Ms. E
claiming that she had a better right to the building and that Ms. E should vacate
the premises immediately.

The applicable law is Article 148 of the Family Code. It provides that:

“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 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 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.”

The aforementioned provision appears to govern your situation. It seems

that the 2-storey building was owned during your cohabitation with Mr. O, you
still have an equal proportion to the property so long that you can present proof
of payment in constructing the property.

Your case, on the other hand, the percentage of ownership will be

according to actual contributions to the building, or how much has paid in the
construction of the 2-storey building. If there is no proof of such an amount of
contribution, then it will be considered equal. On that account, Mrs. O has no
right to claim all the premises, instead the property will be shared 50/50.

Thus, taking into account the application of the legislative intent and the
principle of reason, Paragraph 1 of Article 148 would apply to the case because it
should be interpreted as if one of the parties in a common-law relationship has a
prior marriage, only the properties acquired through an actual joint contribution
of a property shall be considered joint ownership.

RECOMMENDATION

Finally, to invoke Article 148 of the FC, it is required to prove his or her
actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to lay claim to any
portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply
(Rivera v. Heirs of Villanueva, G.R. No. 141501, 2006).

The structure of the property regime, which is a limited ownership

(Mallilin v. Castillo, G.R No. 136803, June 16, 2000) under Article 148, is as
follows:

1. The salaries and wages are separately owned by the partied and
if any of the spouses is married, his or her salary is the property
of the conjugal partnership of gains of such legitimate marriage;

2. Property solely acquired by funds of any of the parties belongs to

such party;

3. 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;

4. The respective shares of the parties over properties owned in

common are presumed to be equal. However, proofs may be
shown to show that their contribution and respective shares are
not equal. Without proof of actual contribution by both parties,
there can be no presumption of co-ownership and equal sharing
(Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 143286, April 14, 2004;
Rivera v Heirs of Romualdo Villanueva, G.R No. 141501, July 21,
2006, 496 SCRA 135).

5. The rule and presumption mentioned above shall apply to joint

deposits of money and evidence of credit; and

6. 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 be forfeited in the manner
provided in the last paragraph of Article 147. The foregoing rules
on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad
faith.
Having examined the situation, we are of the opinion that the party may
be deemed to be co-owners of a property acquired during the cohabitation only
upon proof that each made an actual contribution to its acquisition. Without
proof of actual contribution, a co-ownership under Article 148 cannot arise.
ATTORNEY’S OPINION LETTER, continued

We appreciate to advise you on this matter. Let us know if you'd like to

discuss these topics further. Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,
M & N’s Firm

By:

Atty. Sherbeth Kyle Montegrande Atty. Gilgoric Ngoho

Legal Counsel Legal Counsel