VOL.

539,DECEMBER10,2007
517
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

G.R.No.151153.December10,2007.*
SPOUSESCHARLITOCOJAandANNIEMESACOJA,petitioners,vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALSandHEIRSOFFELICIANOAQUILLO,
SR., namely: QUINCIANO VICTOR, SR., LORNA A. VICTOR,
ANTONIO VICTOR, QUINCIANO A. VICTOR, JR., SUSANA A.
VICTOR, CLARA AQUILLO, CARMENCITA AQUILLO, AGAPITO
AQUILLO, NOEL AQUILLO, ADONIS AQUILLO, FELICIANO
AQUILLO, JR., RONALD AQUILLO and ALDRIN AQUILLO,
respondents.
HusbandandWife;ConjugalPartnership;Presumptions;Asaconditionforthe
operationofArticle160oftheCivilCodewhich
_______________
**DesignatedtositasadditionalMemberoftheFirstDivisionunderSpecialOrderNo.474

datedOctober19,2007issuedpursuanttoAdministrativeCircularNo.842007.
*FIRSTDIVISION.

518

518
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

presumesallpropertyofthemarriagetobelongtotheconjugalpartnership,the
partywhoinvokesthepresumptionmustfirstprovethatthepropertywasacquired
during the marriage.Article 160 of the Civil Code provides: Article 160. All
propertyofthemarriageispresumedtobelongtotheconjugalpartnership,unlessit
beprovedthatitpertainsexclusivelytothehusbandortothewife.Allproperties
acquiredduringthemarriagearethusdisputablypresumedtobelongtotheconjugal
partnership.Asaconditionfortheoperationofabovearticle,infavoroftheconjugal
partnership,thepartywhoinvokesthepresumptionmustfirstprovethattheproperty
wasacquiredduringthemarriage.
Same;Same;Same;Thepresumptionthatthepropertyisconjugalpropertymay
berebuttedonlywithstrong,clear,categoricalandconvincingevidencetheremust
bestrictproofoftheexclusiveownershipofoneofthespouses,andtheburdenof
proofrestsuponthepartyassertingit.TheCAdeclaredthatthe120squaremeter

lotbelongedtotheconjugalpartnershipofFelicianoSr.andLorenzabecausethe
spousesacquireditduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriageandthepropertywasin
fact declared for taxation purposes during the said period. Thus, the statutory
presumptionsetforthinArticle160oftheCivilCodebecameoperative.Havingbeen
acquired during the marital union of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza, the subject 120
squaremeterportionofthepropertysoldbyPazLachicatotheSpousesCojais
presumedtobetheconjugalpropertyofFelicianoSr.andLorenza.Thepresumption
mayberebuttedonlywithstrong,clear,categoricalandconvincingevidence.There
mustbestrictproofoftheexclusiveownershipofoneofthespouses,andtheburden
ofproofrestsuponthepartyassertingit.
Same;Same;CoOwnership;Partitions;Itisabasicprincipleincivillawthat
beforeapropertyownedincommonisactuallypartitioned,allthatthecoownerhas
isanidealorabstractquotaorproportionateshareintheentirepropertyaco
ownerhasnorighttodemandaconcrete,specificordeterminatepartofthething
owned in common because until division is effected his right over the thing is
represented only by an ideal portion.Considering that Paz Lachica owns only
26.6666squaremetersofthe120squaremeterpropertyandtheremaining93.3333
squaremeterportionthereofisownedbytherespondents,theformercouldonly
validlyselltheportionwhichrightfullybelongedtoher.However,consideringthat
PazLachica,thepredecessorininterestoftheSpousesCoja,wasacoownerof
519

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007
519
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

thesubject120squaremeterproperty;andconsideringfurtherthatpartitionof
thepropertyiswanting,thisCourtisprecludedfromdirectingtheSpousesCojato
return specific portions of the property to respondents. Noteworthy is the
pronouncementonthisissueinDeGuiav.CourtofAppeals,413SCRA114(2003),
citingHermogenaG.EngresowithSpouseJoseEngresov.NestoriadelaCruzand
HerminiodelaCruz,401SCRA217(2003):Itisabasicprincipleincivillawthat
beforeapropertyownedincommonisactuallypartitioned,allthatthecoownerhas
isanidealorabstractquotaorproportionateshareintheentireproperty.Acoowner
hasnorighttodemandaconcrete,specificordeterminatepartofthethingownedin
commonbecauseuntildivisioniseffectedhisrightoverthethingisrepresentedonly
byanidealportion.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Whileacoownermayfileanactionforrecoveryof
possessionagainstacoownerwhotakesexclusivepossessionoftheentirecoowned
property,theonlyeffectofsuchactionisarecognitionofthecoownershipjudicial
orextrajudicialpartitionisstillnecessarytoeffectphysicaldivision.
VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007
517
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

G.R.No.151153.December10,2007.*
SPOUSESCHARLITOCOJAandANNIEMESACOJA,petitioners,vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALSandHEIRSOFFELICIANOAQUILLO,
SR., namely: QUINCIANO VICTOR, SR., LORNA A. VICTOR,
ANTONIO VICTOR, QUINCIANO A. VICTOR, JR., SUSANA A.
VICTOR, CLARA AQUILLO, CARMENCITA AQUILLO, AGAPITO
AQUILLO, NOEL AQUILLO, ADONIS AQUILLO, FELICIANO
AQUILLO, JR., RONALD AQUILLO and ALDRIN AQUILLO,
respondents.
HusbandandWife;ConjugalPartnership;Presumptions;Asaconditionforthe
operationofArticle160oftheCivilCodewhich
_______________
**DesignatedtositasadditionalMemberoftheFirstDivisionunderSpecialOrderNo.474

datedOctober19,2007issuedpursuanttoAdministrativeCircularNo.842007.
*FIRSTDIVISION.

518

518
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

presumesallpropertyofthemarriagetobelongtotheconjugalpartnership,the
partywhoinvokesthepresumptionmustfirstprovethatthepropertywasacquired
during the marriage.Article 160 of the Civil Code provides: Article 160. All
propertyofthemarriageispresumedtobelongtotheconjugalpartnership,unlessit
beprovedthatitpertainsexclusivelytothehusbandortothewife.Allproperties
acquiredduringthemarriagearethusdisputablypresumedtobelongtotheconjugal
partnership.Asaconditionfortheoperationofabovearticle,infavoroftheconjugal
partnership,thepartywhoinvokesthepresumptionmustfirstprovethattheproperty
wasacquiredduringthemarriage.

Same;Same;Same;Thepresumptionthatthepropertyisconjugalpropertymay
berebuttedonlywithstrong,clear,categoricalandconvincingevidencetheremust
bestrictproofoftheexclusiveownershipofoneofthespouses,andtheburdenof
proofrestsuponthepartyassertingit.TheCAdeclaredthatthe120squaremeter
lotbelongedtotheconjugalpartnershipofFelicianoSr.andLorenzabecausethe
spousesacquireditduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriageandthepropertywasin
fact declared for taxation purposes during the said period. Thus, the statutory
presumptionsetforthinArticle160oftheCivilCodebecameoperative.Havingbeen
acquired during the marital union of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza, the subject 120
squaremeterportionofthepropertysoldbyPazLachicatotheSpousesCojais
presumedtobetheconjugalpropertyofFelicianoSr.andLorenza.Thepresumption
mayberebuttedonlywithstrong,clear,categoricalandconvincingevidence.There
mustbestrictproofoftheexclusiveownershipofoneofthespouses,andtheburden
ofproofrestsuponthepartyassertingit.
Same;Same;CoOwnership;Partitions;Itisabasicprincipleincivillawthat
beforeapropertyownedincommonisactuallypartitioned,allthatthecoownerhas
isanidealorabstractquotaorproportionateshareintheentirepropertyaco
ownerhasnorighttodemandaconcrete,specificordeterminatepartofthething
owned in common because until division is effected his right over the thing is
represented only by an ideal portion.Considering that Paz Lachica owns only
26.6666squaremetersofthe120squaremeterpropertyandtheremaining93.3333
squaremeterportionthereofisownedbytherespondents,theformercouldonly
validlyselltheportionwhichrightfullybelongedtoher.However,consideringthat
PazLachica,thepredecessorininterestoftheSpousesCoja,wasacoownerof
519

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007
519
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

thesubject120squaremeterproperty;andconsideringfurtherthatpartitionof
thepropertyiswanting,thisCourtisprecludedfromdirectingtheSpousesCojato
return specific portions of the property to respondents. Noteworthy is the
pronouncementonthisissueinDeGuiav.CourtofAppeals,413SCRA114(2003),
citingHermogenaG.EngresowithSpouseJoseEngresov.NestoriadelaCruzand
HerminiodelaCruz,401SCRA217(2003):Itisabasicprincipleincivillawthat
beforeapropertyownedincommonisactuallypartitioned,allthatthecoownerhas
isanidealorabstractquotaorproportionateshareintheentireproperty.Acoowner

hasnorighttodemandaconcrete,specificordeterminatepartofthethingownedin
commonbecauseuntildivisioniseffectedhisrightoverthethingisrepresentedonly
byanidealportion.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Whileacoownermayfileanactionforrecoveryof
possessionagainstacoownerwhotakesexclusivepossessionoftheentirecoowned
property,theonlyeffectofsuchactionisarecognitionofthecoownershipjudicial
orextrajudicialpartitionisstillnecessarytoeffectphysicaldivision.Acoowner
mayfileanactionforrecoveryofpossessionagainstacoownerwhotakesexclusive
possessionoftheentirecoownedproperty.However,theonlyeffectofsuchactionis
a recognition of the coownership. The courts cannot proceed with the actual
partitioningofthecoownedproperty.Infine,judicialorextrajudicialpartitionis
necessarytoeffectphysicaldivisionofthesubject120squaremeterproperty.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
RosalitoB.Apoyaforpetitioners.
DavidE.Calvarioforrespondents.
AZCUNA,J.:
Beforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari1assailingtheDecisionof
theCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.
_______________
1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.

520

520
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

37583 dated February 5, 2001 and the Resolution2 dated November 5,

2001denyingpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
LuzAquilloVictor(hereafterLuz)andFelicianoAquillo,Jr.(hereafter
Feliciano Jr.), both deceased, were the legitimate children of the late
spouses Feliciano Aquillo, Sr. (hereafter Feliciano Sr.) and Lorenza
MangarinAquillo(hereafterLorenza).3 Duringtheirmarriage,Feliciano
Sr. and Lorenza acquired a 120square meter lot located at Poblacion,
Mandaon, Masbate, upon which they built their conjugal home.4 The

subjectlotwascoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.11515issuedinthename
ofFelicianoSr.
AfterthedeathofLorenza,FelicianoSr.cohabitedwithPazLachica
andlivedattheaforesaidhouse.However,afterLorenzasdeath,herheirs
failedtopartitiontheirhereditarysharesintheirinheritance.
On February 27, 1960, while Lorenza (sic) was cohabiting with
FelicianoSr.,PazLachicapurchaseda192squaremeterlotcoveredby
TaxDeclarationNo.02115fromtheheirsofJuanRivas.6 Shelatersold
40.10squaremetersofthepropertytoIsabelL.deRealleavingherwith
only151.9squaremeters.7
OnJuly7,1965,ortwo(2)daysbeforehedied,FelicianoSr.married
PazLachica.8 AfterFelicianoSr.died,hisheirsalsofailedtopartition
amongthemselvestheirhereditarysharesintheirinheritance.
_______________
2Rollo,pp.2728.
3Records,p.1.
4Rollo,p.21.
5Records,p.94.
6Id.,atp.21.
7Id.,atp.129.
8Rollo,p.22.

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007

521
521

Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

Sometimein1969,PazLachicawasissuedTaxDeclarationNo.4424 9
overtheremaining151.9squaremetersofthepropertycoveredbyTax
DeclarationNo.02115.TheaforesaidTaxDeclarationwaslatercancelled
by Tax Declaration No. 3443Rev.10On September 10, 1973, Tax
DeclarationNo.351411 wasissued,effectivelycancelingTaxDeclaration
No.3443Rev.Also,insaidTaxDeclarationNo.3514,theareaoriginally
covered by Tax Declaration No. 3443Rev was increased from 151.9
squaremetersto336squaremeters,anditincludedthe120squaremeter
propertyoriginallycoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.1151.Italsocontained
anannotationatthebackstatingRevisedasperrequestoftheownerto
include the excess area for taxation purposes.12 Thereafter, Tax

DeclarationNo.3514wascancelledbyTaxDeclarationNo.1558, 13which
waslatercancelledbyTaxDeclarationNo.1946,14andlatercancelledby
TaxDeclarationNo.2038.15
OnDecember18,1986,PazLachicaandhereinpetitioners,Spouses
CharlitoCojaandAnnieMesaCoja,executedaDeedofAbsoluteSale16
whereintheformersoldthe336squaremeterparceloflandcoveredby
TaxDeclarationNo.2038tothelatter.Consequently,TaxDeclarationNo.
494617 wasissuedinthenameofpetitioners,cancelingTaxDeclaration
No.2038.
Sometimein1987,CharlitoCojafiledanapplicationfortheissuanceof
titlewiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch46,Masbate,Masbate
(nowMasbateCity)docketedasLRC
_______________
9Records,p.129.
10Id.,atp.128.
11Id.,atp.127.
12Id.
13Id.,atp.126.
14Id.,atp.125.
15Id.,atp.124.
16Id.,atp.122.
17Id.,atp.123.

522

522
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

No.N365.18 Luz,beingoneoftheheirsofFelicianoSr.,opposedthe
applicationforregistration.19Likewise,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
(OSG)opposedtheapplication.TheOSGalleged,amongotherthings,that
the applicant or his predecessorsininterest had not been in open,
continuous,exclusive,andnotoriouspossessionofthesubjectlandwithin
theperiodrequiredbylaw;andthatthedocumentsattachedtooralleged
intheapplicationdonotconstitutecompetentandsufficientevidenceofa
bonafideacquisitionofthelandorofanopen,continuous,exclusive,and
notoriouspossessionandoccupationthereofintheconceptofanowner.20

Duringthependencyofthecase,Luzdied.Shewassubstitutedbyher
spouse, Quinciano Victor, Sr., and her children, Lorna, Antonio,
QuincianoJr.,andSusana,allsurnamedVictor.
On November 3, 1989, respondents filed an action for recovery of
possessionandownershipwithdamages,docketedasCivilCaseNo.3904,
againstthepetitionersandPazLachica.21 Respondentsclaimedthatthey
arethetrueandlawfulheirsoftheSpousesFelicianoSr.andLorenza;that
PazLachicarefusedtodeliverthepropertytoitsrightfulownersdespite
repeateddemands;thatPazLachicaappropriatedthesubjectpropertyto
herself and had the tax declaration transferred to her name; that Paz
LachicasoldthepropertytotheSpousesCoja;andthattheSpousesCoja
failedtodeliverthesubjectpropertytotherightfulheirsdespiterepeated
demands.22
Uponmotionbytheplaintiffs,LRCNo.N365andCivilCaseNo.
3904wereconsolidated.23
_______________
18Rollo,pp.2930.
19Id.,atpp.3132.
20Id.,atpp.3334.
21Records,pp.16.
22Id.,atpp.16.
23Rollo,p.23.

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007

523
523

Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

IntheirAnswer,defendantsthereinallegedthatPazLachicaacquiredthe
subjectpropertybeforehermarriagetoFelicianoSr.andthatshehadbeen
inactualandphysicalpossessionofthesameformorethanfifteen(15)
yearsbeforeshesoldthepropertytotheSpousesCoja;thattheyacquired
thepropertybypurchasingitfromPazLachica;thattheyarebuyersin
good faith and for value; and that the property in question was the
paraphernalpropertyofPazLachicaand,therefore,plaintiffsthereinhave
norightandinterestoverthesame.24
Thepartiesfailedtosettletheirrespectivedifferencesandajointtrial
ensued.

On March 11, 1992, the RTC rendered a decision 25 against the

plaintiffsoppositorsandinfavorofthedefendantsapplicants,thedecretal
portionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,decisionisherebyrenderedinfavorofthe
defendantsapplicants,towit:
1. 1.
OrderingthedismissalofthecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.3904withcostsagainst
theplaintiffsoppositors;
2. 2.
DeclaringthedefendantsapplicantsspousesCharlitoCojaandAnnieMesa,the
absoluteownerofthelandsubjectoftheirapplicationinL.R.C.No.N365;
3. 3.
Declaringthetitleoftheapplicants,spousesCharlitoCojaandAnnieMesaand
SanchoMesa,overthepropertydesignatedasPsu05005736togetherwithall
theimprovementsthereon,CONFIRMEDandREGISTEREDpursuanttothe
provisionsofP.D.1529.
Oncethisdecisionbecomesfinalandexecutory,letthecorrespondingdecreeof
registrationissue.
SOORDERED.26
_______________
24Id.,atpp.4142.
25Id.,atpp.7783.
26Id.,atpp.8283.

524

524
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

TheRTCopinedthatsincethelandinquestionisregisteredinthenameof
Paz Lachica alone, it is assumed that it is not part of the conjugal
partnership properties of Feliciano Sr.,and Lorenza,for if it wastheir
conjugalproperty,itshouldhavebeenregisteredintheirnames.Assuch,
whentheSpousesCojapurchasedthepropertyfromPazLachica,they
wereofthehonestbeliefthatthelatterwasthetrueandlawfulowner.
Likewise, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the RTC held that
defendantsapplicants possess good title proper for registration and
confirmation.27

Aggrieved,plaintiffsoppositorsappealedfromthedecisiontotheCA,
assigningthefollowingerrors:
1. [1]
THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHE
DEFENDANTSAPPLICANTS,SPOUSESCHARLITOCOJA
ANDANNIEMESACOJAARETHETRUEANDLAWFUL
OWNERSOFTHELANDSUBJECTOFTHEIRAPPLICATION.
2. [2]
THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINCONCLUDINGTHAT
THELANDINQUESTIONISNOTTHECONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIPPROPERTYOFTHECOUPLE,THELATE
SPOUSESFELICIANOAQUILLOANDLORENZAMANGARIN
3. [3]
THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINHOLDINGTHAT
DEFENDANTSAPPLICANTSPOSSESSGOODTITLE,PROPER
FORREGISTRATION.28
OnFebruary5,2001,theCArenderedaDecision29reversingandsetting
asidethedecisionoftheRTC,thepertinentportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisiondatedMarch11,1992ishereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDE,andanewoneentered,asfollows:
_______________
27Id.,atpp.8082.
28Id.,atpp.4950.
29Id.,atpp.2026.

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007

525
525

Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

1. 1.
ThesaleofthepropertybyPazLachicatoSpousesCharlitoCojaandAnnieMesa
Cojainsofarasthesharesofappellantsis(sic)concernedisNULLIFIED;
2. 2.
Appelleesapplicantsareorderedtodeliverpossessionofthepropertyoriginally
coveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.1151toappellants,totheextentof93.3333
squaremeters;
3. 3.

AppelleeapplicantsareorderedtopayappellantsP300.00permonthasreasonable
rentfortheuseoftheproperty,fromthedateoffilingofthecomplaintand
untilpossessionthereofisrestoredtoappellants;
4. 4.
TheapplicationforregistrationoftitlebyCharlitoandAnnieCojainL.R.C.No.
N365isdenied;and
5. 5.
Costsagainstappellees.
SOORDERED.30

TheCAconcludedthatthepropertyformerlycoveredbyTaxDeclaration
No.1151,withanareaof120squaremeters,istheconjugalpropertyof
Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza having been acquired during their marriage.
Underthelaw,uponthedeathofLorenza,onehalfofsaidproperty,or60
squaremeters,wastransmittedtoherheirs,namelyFelicianoSr.,Feliciano
Jr., and Luz, at 20 square meters each, while the remaining onehalf
pertainedtoFelicianoSr.aloneashisshareintheconjugalproperty.Upon
thedeathofFelicianoSr.,hisrightsovertheproperty,consistingofhis
inheritancefromhiswifeandhisshareintheconjugalpartnership,ora
totalof80squaremeters,weretransmittedtohisheirs,FelicianoJr.,Luz,
andhiswidow,PazLachica.Thus,PazLachicaisentitledtoonly26.6666
squaremetersandtheheirsofFelicianoJr.andLuzareentitledtothe
remaining93.3333squaremetersofthesubjectproperty.Therefore,Paz
Lachicahadnoauthoritytoselltheirportionsoftheproperty.
_______________
30Id.,atp.26.

526

526
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

Applicantsappelleesthereinfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutitwas
deniedintheResolution31datedNovember5,2001.
Hence,thispetition,assigningthefollowingerrors:
1. [1]
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINREVERSING
ANDSETTINGASIDETHEDECISIONOFTHEREGIONAL
TRIALCOURT,BRANCH46,ATMASBATENOWMASBATE

CITY(ANNEXH)ASTHESAMEISINACCORDANCEWITH
LAWANDJURISPRUDENCE;AND
2. [2]
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINDENYING
THEAPPLICATIONFORLANDREGISTRATIONOFTITLEOF
THEPETITIONERSOVERTHEIRRESIDENTIALAND
COMMERCIALLANDSITUATEDATPOBLACION,
MANDAON,MASBATEWHICHSHOULDBECONFIRMED
ANDREGISTEREDPURSUANTTOLANDREGISTRATION
LAWINRELATIONTOPDNO.1529.
Petitionersarguethatrespondentsfailedtoestablishtheircaseonthebasis
oftheevidencetheypresentedduringthetrial.Respondentsonlypresented
TaxDeclarationNo.1151whichhadneverbeenupdatedsince1945upto
FelicianoSr.sdeath.Inaddition,hisallegedsuccessorsininteresthave
notcausedtherevisionofthesaidtaxdeclarationnorpaidthetaxestothe
governmentuptothepresentandhencethesamecannotbeconsidered
proofofownership.SinceFelicianoSr.isnottheownerofthepropertyin
question,thesamecannotbeinheritedbytherespondents.Moreover,no
surveyofthepropertyhadbeenmadeinthenameofFelicianoSr.32
Petitionersaddthatthesubjectpropertywastheparaphernalproperty
of Paz Lachica since she purchased the property before she married
FelicianoSr.Finally,petitionersmaintainthattheyarepurchasersingood
faithandforvalue
_______________
31Id.,atpp.2728.
32Id.,atpp.1216.

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007

527
527

Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

since the subject property was covered by a tax declaration in Paz

Lachicasnamewhentheyboughtitfromher.33
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
ThepropertysubjectmatterofthecontractofsalebetweentheSpouses
CojaandPazLachica,isa336squaremeterparceloflandcoveredbyTax
DeclarationNo.2038.34ThisincludesthepropertyboughtbyPazLachica

fromtheheirsofJuanRivas,someotherparcelsofland,andthe120
square meter lot purchased by Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza during their
marriage.
Article160oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Article160.Allpropertyofthemarriageispresumedtobelongtotheconjugal
partnership,unlessitbeprovedthatitpertainsexclusivelytothehusbandortothe
wife.

Allpropertiesacquiredduringthemarriagearethusdisputablypresumed
tobelongtotheconjugalpartnership.Asaconditionfortheoperationof
abovearticle,infavoroftheconjugalpartnership,thepartywhoinvokes
thepresumptionmustfirstprovethatthepropertywasacquiredduringthe
marriage.35
TheCAdeclaredthatthe120squaremeterlotbelongedtotheconjugal
partnershipofFelicianoSr.andLorenzabecausethespousesacquiredit
during the subsistence of their marriage and the property was in fact
declaredfortaxationpurposesduringthesaidperiod.Thus,thestatutory
presumptionsetforthinArticle160oftheCivilCodebecameoperative.
Having been acquired during the marital union of Feliciano Sr. and
Lorenza,thesubject120squaremeterportionofthepropertysoldbyPaz
LachicatotheSpousesCojaispresumedtobetheconjugalpropertyof
FelicianoSr.andLorenza.
_______________
33Id.
34Supranote15.
35Gov.Yamane,G.R.No.160762,May3,2006,489SCRA107,117.

528

528
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

Thepresumptionmayberebuttedonlywithstrong,clear,categoricaland
convincing evidence. There must be strict proof of the exclusive
ownershipofoneofthespouses,andtheburdenofproofrestsuponthe
partyassertingit.36
Petitionersinsistthatthepropertysubjectofthesalewasexclusively
ownedbyPazLachicahavingbeenpurchasedpriortohermarriagewith
FelicianoSr.Theargumentisnotsupportedbyevidence.Whileitmaybe

correcttoarguethatthe216squaremeterportionofthe336squaremeter
subjectofthesalewasexclusivelyownedbyPazLachica,thesamecannot
besustainedastothe120squaremeterportionoriginallycoveredbyTax
DeclarationNo.1151.PazLachicaclaimsownershipoverthepropertyin
questiononthebasisonlyofataxdeclarationissuedinhername.Butthat
isTaxDeclarationNo.3514whichwasbelatedlyissuedinthenameof
PazLachicatoincludethe120squaremeterlotoriginallycoveredbyTax
DeclarationNo.1151.RevisionwasdoneuponPazLachicasrequestafter
the death of Feliciano Sr. The revision of the tax declaration or the
issuanceofanewoneinhername,didnotoperateandtransfertitleofthe
subjectpropertytoher.Thepropertyremainedasonethatformedpartof
theconjugalpropertyofFelicianoSr.andLorenza.
UponthedeathofLorenza,theconjugalpartnershipwasterminated.As
aresult,onehalfofthepropertywasautomaticallyreservedinfavorofthe
survivingspouse,FelicianoSr.ashisshareintheconjugalpartnership.
Theotherhalf,whichistheshareofLorenza,wastransmittedtoLorenzas
heirs,FelicianoJr.,Luz,andherhusbandFelicianoSr.,whoisentitledto
thesameshareasthatofalegitimatechild.37
TheCourtagreesintotowiththeCAsconclusion:
_______________
36Gov.Yamane,id.;Villanuevav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.143286,April14,2004,

427SCRA439,451.
37Herbonv.Palad,G.R.No.149542,July20,2006,495SCRA544;Cruzv.Leis,G.R.

No.125233,March9,2000,327SCRA570.
VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007

529
529

Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

xxx.UnderArticle996oftheCivilCode,uponthedeathofLorenzaMangarin,
onehalfofsaidproperty,or60squaremeters,istransmittedtoherheirs,namely:
FelicianoAquillo,Sr.,FelicianoAquillo,Jr.,andLuzAquillo,at20squaremeters
each,whiletheremainingonehalfistransmittedtoFelicianoAquillo,Sr.Uponthe
deathofFelicianoAquillo,Sr.,hisrightsover theproperty,consistingofthe20
square meterinheritance from his late wife and his 60 square metershare in the
conjugalpartnership,oratotalof80squaremetersweretransmittedtohisheirs,
namely: Feliciano Aquillo, Jr., Luz Aquillo, and his widow, Paz Lachica. The

survivingspouseisentitledtothesameshareasthatofthelegitimatechildren,tothe
portionofonethirdeachor26.6666squaremeterseachxxx.Thus,asaresultofthe
deathofFelicianoAquillo,Sr.,aregimeofcoownershipexistsamongFeliciano,Jr.,
LuzAquillo,andPazLachica,withrespecttotheundivided80squaremetersofthe
propertycoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.1151.
The120squaremeterslessthehereditaryshareofPazLachicawhichis26.6666
square meters, or the 93.3333 square meters of the property covered by Tax
DeclarationNo.1151,belongtotheappellants,beingtheheirsofthelateFeliciano
Aquillo,Jr.andLuzAquillo.xxx.38

ConsideringthatPazLachicaownsonly26.6666squaremetersofthe120
square meter property and the remaining 93.3333square meter portion
thereofisownedbytherespondents,theformercouldonlyvalidlysellthe
portionwhichrightfullybelongedtoher.However,consideringthatPaz
Lachica,thepredecessorininterestoftheSpousesCoja,wasacoowner
of the subject 120square meter property; and considering further that
partitionofthepropertyiswanting,thisCourtisprecludedfromdirecting
theSpousesCojatoreturnspecificportionsofthepropertytorespondents.
Noteworthyisthepronouncementonthisissuein DeGuiav.Courtof
Appeals39citing Hermogena G. Engreso with Spouse Jose Engreso v.
NestoriadelaCruzandHerminiodelaCruz:40
_______________
38Rollo,p.24.
39G.R.No.120864,October8,2003,413SCRA114,125.
40G.R.No.148727,April9,2003,401SCRA217,220.

530

530
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cojavs.CourtofAppeals

It is a basic principle in civil law that before a property owned in common is

actually partitioned, all that the coowner has is an ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share inthe entireproperty. A coowner has norightto demanda
concrete,specificordeterminatepartofthethingownedincommonbecauseuntil
divisioniseffectedhisrightoverthethingisrepresentedonlybyanidealportion.
Assuch,theonlyeffectofanactionbroughtbyacoowneragainstacoowner
willbetoobtainrecognitionofthecoownership;thedefendantcannotbeexcluded
from a specific portion of the property because as a coowner he has a right to

possess and the plaintiff cannot recover any material or determinate part of the
property.xxx.

Acoownermayfileanactionforrecoveryofpossessionagainstaco
ownerwhotakesexclusivepossessionoftheentirecoownedproperty.
However, the only effect of such action is a recognition of the co
ownership.Thecourtscannotproceedwiththeactualpartitioningofthe
coownedproperty.41Infine,judicialorextrajudicialpartitionisnecessary
toeffectphysicaldivisionofthesubject120squaremeterproperty.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisPARTIALLYGRANTED.TheDecision
oftheCourtofAppealsdatedFebruary5,2001inCAG.R.CVNo.37583
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the portion ordering
petitionerstodeliverpossessiontorespondentsofthepropertyoriginally
covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151 to the extent of 93.3333 square
metersisDELETED.Inlieuthereof,thecoownershipbetweentheparties
overthesubject120squaremeterpropertyisrecognized,totheextentof
undividedsharesof93.3333squaremetersforrespondentsand26.6666
squaremetersforpetitioners.
Nocosts.
_______________
41DeGuiav.CourtofAppeals,supraatp.127.

VOL.539,DECEMBER10,2007

531
531

FrondaBaggaovs.People

SOORDERED.
Puno(C.J.,Chairperson),YnaresSantiago,** SandovalGutierrez
andCorona,JJ.,concur.
Petitionpartiallygranted,judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
Notes.Propertiesacquiredduringthemarriagearepresumedtobe
conjugal, but this prima facie presumption cannot prevail over the
cadastralcourtsspecificfinding,reachedinadversarialproceedings,that
thelotwasinheritedbyoneofthespouses.(Pisueavs.HeirsofPetra
Unating,313SCRA384[1999])
Succession laws and jurisprudence require that when a marriage is
dissolvedbythedeathofthehusbandorthewife,thedecedentsentire
estateunder the concept of conjugal properties of gainsmust be

dividedequally,withonehalfgoingtothesurvivingspouseandtheother
halftotheheirsofthedeceased.(HeirsofSpousesRemediosR.Sandejas
andEliodoroP.Sandejas,Sr.vs.Lina,351SCRA183[2001])
o0o
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.