Você está na página 1de 20


Property Relations Between Husband RTCs Ruling

and Wife (Arts. 74-148) 1. Declaring the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos
executed by the late Francisco Comille recorded
Donations Between Husband and Wife as Doc. No. 7; Page No. 3; Book No. V; Series of
During Marriage and Common Law Spouses, 1991 in the Notarial Register of Notary Public Vic
Void : T. Lacaya (Annex A to the Complaint) null and
1. Arcaba vs. Tabancura Vda. De Batocael,
GR No. 146683, November 22, 2001; 370 2. Ordering the defendant to deliver possession of
SCRA 414 the house and lot subject of the deed unto
the plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after finality
Background: Petitioner Cirila Arcaba seeks review of this decision; and finally
on certiorari of the decision of the Court of 3. Ordering the defendant to pay attorneys fees
Appeals, which affirmed with modification the in the sum of P10,000.00.
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10,
Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte in Civil Case CAs Ruling:
No. 4593, declaring as void a deed of donation The respondent Cirila appealed to the CA but the
inter vivos executed by the late Francisco T. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence
Comille in her favor and its subsequent resolution this petition.
denying reconsideration.
Facts: WON the Court of Appeals correctly applied Art.
After the death of Zosima on October 3, 1980, 87 of the Family Code to the circumstances of this
Francisco and his mother-in-law, Juliana Bustalino case.
Montallana, executed a deed of extrajudicial
partition with waiver of rights, in which the latter SC Ruling
waived her share consisting of one-fourth ( 1/4) of After a review of the records, we rule in the
the property to Francisco. affirmative. The general rule is that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for
On June 27, 1916, Francisco registered the lot in review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
his name with the Registry of Deeds. Having no subject only to certain exceptions: (a) when the
children to take care of him after his retirement, conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
Francisco asked his niece Leticia Bellosillo, the speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (b) when
latters cousin, Luzviminda Paghacian, and the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
petitioner Cirila Arcaba, then a widow, to take absurd, or impossible; (c) where there is grave
care of his house, as well as the store inside. abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is
Conflicting testimonies were offered as to the based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when
nature of the relationship between Cirila and the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the
Francisco. Leticia Bellosillo said Francisco and Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
Cirila were lovers since they slept in the same beyond the issues of the case and the same are
room, while Erlinda Tabancura, another niece contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
of Francisco, claimed that the latter had told her appellee; (g) when the findings of the Court of
that Cirila was his mistress. Cirila contested that Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
she just a helper having authority to enter into (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions
Franciscos room if the latter order he. She denied without citation of specific evidence on which
they ever had sexual intercourse. On January they are based; (i) when the finding of fact of the
24, 1991, a few months before his death, Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
Francisco executed an instrument denominated absence of evidence but is contradicted by the
Deed of Donation Inter Vivos, in which he ceded evidence on record; and (j) when the Court of
a portion of Lot 437-A, consisting of 150 square Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
meters, together with his house, to Cirila, who facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
accepted the donation in the same instrument. properly considered, would justify a different
Francisco left the larger portion of 268 square conclusion.
meters in his name. The deed stated that the
donation was being made in consideration of the The Court of Appeals based its findings on
faithful services [Cirila Arcaba] had rendered over evidence presented by both parties, the general
the past ten (10) years. The deed was notarized rule should apply. In Bitangcor v. Tan, we held
by Atty. Vic T. Lacaya, Sr. and later registered by that the term cohabitation or living together as
Cirila as its absolute owner. On October 4, 1991, husband and wife means not only residing under
Francisco died without any children. one roof, but also having repeated sexual
intercourse. Cohabitation, of course, means
On February 18, 1993, respondents filed a more than sexual intercourse, especially
complaint against petitioner for declaration of when one of the parties is already old and may no
nullity of a deed of donation inter vivos, recovery longer be interested in sex. At the very least,
of possession, and damages. Respondents, who cohabitation is the public assumption by a man
are the decedents nephews and nieces and his and a woman of the marital relation, and dwelling
heirs by intestate succession, alleged that Cirila together as man and wife, thereby holding
was the common-law wife of Francisco and the themselves out to the public as such.
donation inter vivos made by Francisco in her
favor is void under Article 87 of the Family Code. It is difficult to believe that she stayed with
Francisco and served him out of pure
Article 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous beneficence. Human reason would thus lead to
advantage, direct or indirect, between the the conclusion that she was Franciscos common-
spouses during the marriage shall be void, except law spouse. Respondents having proven by a
moderate gifts which the spouses may give each preponderance of evidence that Cirila and
other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. Francisco lived together as husband and wife
without a valid marriage, the inescapable
conclusion is that the donation made by Francisco
in favor of Cirila is void under Art. 87 of the payment of the full amount. Evidently, there was
Family Code. a check issued worth $25,000 paid to the owner
of the Paranaque property which became the
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals conjugal dwelling of the spouses. The wife
affirming the decision of the trial court is hereby executed an instrument acknowledging the loan
AFFIRMED. but Abelardo did not sign.


Liabilities of the Absolute Community
On June 26, 1996, the RTC Valenzuela (Branch 71)
rendered its judgement in favor of the petitioner.
2. Carlos vs. Abelardo, GR No. 146504, April
The dispositive portion reads:
9, 2002
1. Ordering the respondent and his wife,
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo, to pay petitioner
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari
the amount of US$25,000.00 or its equivalent in
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the decision
Philippine Currency at the time of its payment,
of the Court of Appeals dated November 10, 2000
plus legal interest from August 24, 1994 until fully
in CA-G.R. CV No. 54464 which reversed and set
aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
2. Ordering Manuel T. Abelardo to pay
Valenzuela, Branch 172, and dismissed for
Honorio L. Carlos the amount of P500,000.00
insufficiency of evidence the complaint for a sum
representing moral damages and the further
of money and damages filed by herein petitioner
amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Honorio Carlos against respondent Manuel
3. Ordering the respondent and his wife,
Abelardo, his son-in-law, and the latters wife,
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo, to pay petitioner
Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo.
the amount of P100, 000.00 as attorneys fees,
plus the costs of suit.
On October 13, 1994, Honorio Carlos (Carlos)
filed a petition against Manuel Abelardo
Respondent Abelardo appealed the decision of
(Abelardo), his son-in-law, for the recovery of
the trial court to the Court of Appeals. On
US$25,000.00 loan used to purchase a house and
November 10, 2000, the Court of Appeals
lot located in Paraaque. Carlos averred in his
reversed and set aside the trial courts decision
complaint that in October 1989, respondent and
and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of
his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo
evidence to show that the subject amount was
approached him and requested him to advance
indeed loaned by petitioner to respondent and his
the amount of US$25,000.00 Petitioner then
wife. The Court of Appeals found that the amount
issued a check in the name of a certain Pura
of US$25,000.00 was respondents share in the
Vallejo, seller of the property, who acknowledged
profits of H.L. Carlos Construction. Hence, this
receipt thereof.
When petitioner inquired from the spouses in as
to the status of the amount he loaned to them
Whether or not a loan obtained to purchase the
sometime July 1991, the latter acknowledged
conjugal dwelling can be charged against the
their obligation but pleaded that they were not
conjugal partnership.
yet in a position to make a definite settlement of
the same. Thereafter, respondent expressed
violent resistance to petitioners inquiries on the
The court found merit in the petition.
amount to the extent of making various death
Early in time, it must be noted that payment of
threats against petitioner.
personal debts contracted by the husband or the
wife before or during the marriage shall not be
On August 24, 1994, petitioner made a formal
charged to the conjugal partnership except
demand for the payment of the amount of
insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the
US$25,000.00 but the spouses failed to comply
family. The defendants never denied that the
with their obligation. Consequently, petitioner
check of US$25,000.00 was used to purchase the
filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money
subject house and lot. They do not deny that the
and damages against respondent and his wife
same served as their conjugal home, thus
before the RTC of Valenzuela (Branch 172).
benefiting the family. Hence, defendant-husband
and defendant-wife are jointly and severally liable
As the respondent and his wife were separated
in the payment of the loan.
for more than a year prior to the filing of the
complaint, they filed separate answers. Abelardo
The evidence adduced by petitioner sufficiently
contended that the amount was never intended
established his claim that the US$25,000.00 he
as a loan but his share of income on contracts
advanced to respondent and his wife was a loan.
obtained by him in the construction firm (using
The loan is the liability of the conjugal
the name H.L. CARLOS CONSTRUCTION) and that
partnership pursuant to Article 121 of the Family
the petitioner could have easily deducted the
debt from his share in the profits. He also denied
having made death threats to Carlos. By way of
Article 121. The conjugal partnership shall be
compulsory counterclaim, respondent asked for
liable for:
moral damages from petitioner for causing
alienation of his wifes love and affection,
(2) All debts and obligations contracted during
attorneys fee and cost of suit. Maria Theresa
the marriage by the designated administrator-
Carlos-Abelardo, on the other hand, admitted
spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership
securing a loan together with her husband, from
of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them
petitioner. She claimed, however, that said loan
with the consent of the other;
was payable on a staggered basis so she was
surprised when petitioner demanded immediate

(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either Confirmed the Deed of Sale and declared
spouse without the consent of the other to the Agbayanis the absolute owners of the lot in
extent that the family may have been benefited; question.
If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover
the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be HELD: Article 166 of the Civil Code prohibits
solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their alienation or encumbrance of real property by the
separate properties. husband without the consent of the wife. This
xxx provision should be read with Article 173 of the
While respondent did not and refused to sign the same Code providing that the wife may, during
acknowledgment executed and signed by his the marriage and within ten (10) years from the
wife, undoubtedly, the loan redounded to the questioned transaction, ask the courts for
benefit of the family because it was used to annulment of any contract of the husband
purchase the house and lot which became the entered into without her consent. In other words,
conjugal home of respondent and his family. the lack of consent by the wife will not make the
Hence, notwithstanding the alleged lack of alienation of the conjugal property by the
consent of respondent, under Art. 21 of the husband void. It is merely voidable. SINCE THE
Family Code, he shall be solidarily liable for such RAMONES WIFE DID NOT ASK FOR THE
loan together with his wife. ANNULMENT OF THE DEED OF SALE WITHIN 10
The petition was granted. The decision of the VALID.
Court of Appeals was modified and respondent
Abelardo is ordered to pay the petitioner ithe
amount of US$25,000 or its equivalent in SUPREME COURT CASE (Petition for Review
Philippine currency at the time of payment plus on Certiorari)
legal interest including moral and exemplary
damages, and attorneys fees. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of real property
belonging to the conjugal partnership by Santos
Ownership, Administration, Enjoyment and Ramones without his wifes consent is void.
Disposition of the Community Property
SC DECISION: AFFIRMED the decision of the CA.
3. Vda. De Ramones vs. Agbayani, GR No.
137808, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 306 HELD: Since the sale was executed on May 23,
1979 before the effectivity of the Family Code,
FACTS: the provisions of the Civil Code of 1950 will apply.
Clearly, Article 166 is categorical that the
On May 23, 1979, Santos Ramones, husband cannot alienate or encumber any real
property of the conjugal partnership without the
without the knowledge of his wife,
wifes consent. This provision, however, must be
Aldegonda, sold to Aurora P. Agbayani a
interpreted in conjunction with Article 173 of the
100-square meter portion of the conjugal
same Code which provides that the wife may ask
lot for P5,000.00. The Deed of Sale was
the courts for the annulment of the contract
annotated by the Register of Deeds as
within 10 years from its execution.
Entry No. 90 at the back of TCT No. T-
Here, there is no proof that petitioner Aldegonda
Ramones filed any complaint to annul the Deed of
On March 7, 1980, Santos Ramones died.
Sale entered into by her husband. As held by this
Subsequently, Aldegonda and her Court in Villaranda,[8] her right to bring an action
daughters Beatriz and Margarita, herein to invalidate the contract has thus prescribed.
petitioners, had a restroom and a concrete Hence, the assailed Deed is still valid and
septic tank built on the area sold by enforceable.
Santos Ramones to Agbayani without
Agbayanis knowledge.
Liquidation of the Absolute Community
Assets and Liabilities

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CASE (Agbayani vs 4. Dael vs IAC, GR No. 68873, March 31,
Ramones) 1989, 171 SCRA 524

Agbayani filed a complaint for quieting of title FACTS:

and recovery of possession against Cesario Cabutihan was married to Beinvenida
petitioners on the basis of the Deed of Sale Durana, whom he had five children, Carmencita,
executed by Santos Ramones. Romulo, Lermo and Bienvenido all surnamed
Cabutihan. Upon the death of the wife; Cesario
The Ramoneses contended that the sale contracted a second marriage with his former
between Santos Ramones and Agbayani is wifes sister Victorina. The latter's heirs are the
void since it was executed without the children of her two sisters and a brother namely:
consent of his wife, Aldegonda Ramones. Bienvenida Durana, Soledad Durana and Federico
Durana Sr.; the latter is the father of the
RTC DECISION: IN FAVOR of the Ramoneses oppositors, Federico, Jr., Flordelizada ,
Fredizvinda, Fabian and Fe Patricio, all surnamed
HELD: Durana; while Soledad Durana is the mother of
The Deed of Sale is void because it was executed the other oppsitors, Evaristo, Domingo Jr., Lucilda
without the consent of the wife Aldegonda and Conrado, all surnamed Dael; the other heirs
Ramones. of Vitorina Durana are the petitioner herself and
the intervenors who are all the children of
COURT OF APPEALS CASE Bienvenida Durana.

CA DECISION: REVERSED the decision of the RTC.

It is claimed by all the oppositors that they are be considered as inherited by him and his five
entitled to 2/3 portion of the estate of Victorina children as the heirs of Bienvenida.
Durana considering that their predecessors-in-
interest are the brother and sister of Victorina The properties pertaining to the second
Durana; while the remaining 1/3 portion should partnership shall also be equally divided, one-half
devolve to the petitioner and the intervenors who (1/2) to belong to Cesario and the other to
represent their mother Bienvenida Durana and Victorina as their respective shares in their
the other sister of Victorina Durana. conjugal partnership properties. The share of
Cesario should then be divided among his heirs,
Ruling of RTC: namely, Victorina and his five (5) children.
Private respondents filed settlement over the
property of their deceased parents to the Court of To recapitulate, the estate of Victorina for
First Instance of Quezon by Carmencita distribution to her heirs shall consist of her one-
Cabutihan, one of the private respondents herein. half (1/2) share in the conjugal properties of the
Trial Court rendered a decision holding that aforesaid second marriage and her one-sixth (1/6)
Victorina Durana had no paraphernal properties share in the estate of Cesario as an heir.
brought to her marriage with Cesario. That the
copra business was formed during the first ISSUE:
marriage and Victorina used the same facilities, Is the marital community of proprietary interest
credit and capital in managing the business, and continued to exist in the second marriage, even
the main source of the income not only of Cesario after the Cesario-Beinvenida conjugal partnership
and also of Victorina during their respective has been dissolved by the death of Bienvenida?
lifetimes was the copra business.
To determine, therefore, the extent of the estate When Bienvenida Durana died, the first conjugal
of Victorina Durana from the list of properties, partnership was automatically dissolved. That
which erroneously include even the Estate of the conjugal partnership was then converted into an
First Marriage, the conjugal estate of Cesario's implied ordinary co-ownership. It was also at this
first marriage must be settled or liquidated first; point in time that the inheritance was transmitted
one-half of the conjugal estate shall be inherited to the heirs of Bienvenida. Thus, her heirs,
by Cesario Cabutihan and his five (5) children, all Cesario, Nonilon Carmencita Romulo, Lermo and
surnamed CABUTIHAN, the inheritance of Cesario Bienvenido, acquired respective and definite
Cabutihan in the Estate of Bienvenida Durana in rights over one-half (1/2) of the conjugal
addition to the other one (1/2) half which is his partnership property which pertained to
share in the conjugal partnership with his wife Bienvinida. Consequently, whatever fruits or
Bienvenida shall constitute Cesario's estate which income may thereafter be derived from the
shall be inherited by his heirs, namely: Victorina properties, including the copra business, would
Durana, his second wife, and his legitimate no longer be conjugal but would belong in part to
children by his first wife, all surnamed the heirs in proportion to their respective shares.
CABUTIHAN. The fruits and income of the other half of the
property of the conjugal partnership would
Hence, the extent of the Estate of Victorina exclusively belong to Cesario.
Durana shall consist only of her share in the
inheritance of the Estate of Cesario Cabutihan. The decision of the lower courts was set aside.
The properties shall be divided in the following
Ruling of CA: manner: (a) Seven-twelfths (7/12) of fifteen
As a consequence, petitioners appealed to the twenty-ninths (15/29), and one-half (1/2) of
former Intermediate Appellate Court. Respondent fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29), of the properties
court promulgated its decision which affirmed the listed in the inventory, shall constitute the estate
decision of the lower court, hence this petition for of Cesario Cabutihan. This estate shall be divided
certiorari. equally among his six (6) heirs, namely, his
second wife, Victorina, and his five (5) children,
Petitioners submit that both the respondent and Nonilon Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and
lower courts erred in concluding that the copra Bienvenido, all surnamed Cabutihan; and (b) The
business, as well as the properties listed in the remaining five-twelfths (5/12) of fifteen twenty-
inventories as acquired during the second ninths (15/29) of the properties shall belong to
marriage, are assets of the conjugal partnership the said five (5) children, as their respective
of the first marriage between Cesario and participations in their mother's inheritance;
Bienvenida. They argued that to so hold would, in
effect, maintain the theory that the marital The estate of Victorina Durana, shall consist of
community of proprietary interest continued to one-half (1/2) of the other portion constituting
exist even after the Cesario-Bienvenida conjugal fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29) of the properties
partnership had been dissolved by the death of which represents her share in the conjugal
Bienvenida. properties of the second marriage, and one-sixth
(1/6) of the estate of Cesario Cabutihan as fixed
The first marriage existed for approximately herein, and said properties shall be divided
fifteen (15) years (1942 to 1957), while the among her heirs.
second marriage lasted for about fourteen (14)
years (1958 to 1972). Applying the aforestated Conjugal Properties
rule, the first conjugal partnership will be
prorated a share of fifteen twenty-ninths (15/29)
of the properties, while the second conjugal 5. Ching vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.
partnership will get fourteen twenty-ninths 126642, Feb. 23, 2004
(14/29) thereof.
One-half (1/2) of the properties that pertain to the Philippine Blooming Mills Company, Inc. (PBMCI)
first conjugal partnership belong to Cesario as his obtained two loans from the Allied Banking
conjugal share therein, while the other half shall Corporation (ABC). (PBMCI) Executive Vice-

President Alfredo Ching executed a continuing 6. Ferrer vs. Ferrer, GR No. 166496, Nov. 9,
guaranty with the ABC for the payment of the 2006 (Art. 120)
said loan. The PBMCI defaulted in the payment of
all its loans so ABC filed a complaint for sum of Facts:
money against the PBMCI. Trial court issued a writ
of preliminary attachment against Alfredo Ching Petitioner Josefa alleged that she is the widow
requiring the sheriff of to attach all the properties of Alfredo Ferrer (Alfredo), a half-brother of
of said Alfredo Ching to answer for the payment respondents Manuel M. Ferrer (Manuel) and
of the loans. Encarnacion T. Ching, wife of Alfredo Ismael M. Ferrer (Ismael).
Ching, filed a Motion to Set Aside the levy on Before her marriage to Alfredo, the latter
attachment allegeing inter alia that the 100,000 acquired a piece of lot.
shares of stocks levied on by the sheriff were He applied for a loan with the SSS to build
acquired by her and her husband during their improvements thereon, including a residential
marriage out of conjugal funds. Petitioner house and a two-door apartment building.
spouses aver that the source of funds in the However, he stopped paying rentals thereon,
acquisition of the levied shares of stocks is not alleging that he had acquired ownership over the
the controlling factor when invoking the property by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed by
presumption of the conjugal nature of stocks Alfredo in favor of respondents, Manuel and
under Art. !21 and that such presumption Ismael and their spouses.
subsists even if the property is registered only in When her husband was already bedridden,
the name of one of the spouses, in this case, respondents Ismael and Flora Ferrer made him
petitioner Alfredo Ching. According to the sign a document, purported to be his last will and
petitioners, the suretyship obligation was not testament. The document, however, was a Deed
contracted in the pursuit of the petitioner- of Sale covering Alfredos lot and the
husbands profession or business.44 improvements thereon.
Learning of this development, Alfredo filed with
ISSUE: the RTC of Pasig, a Complaint for Annulment of
WON 100,000 shares of stocks may be levied on the said sale against respondents.
by the sheriff to answer for the loans guaranteed
by petitioner Alfredo Ching RTC:
RTC dismissed the same. RTC found that the
HELD: terms and conditions of the deed of sale are not
No. The CA erred in holding that by executing a contrary to law, morals, good customs, and public
continuing guaranty and suretyship agreement policy, and should be complied with by the
with the private respondent for the payment of parties in good faith, there being no compelling
the PBMCI loans, the petitioner-husband was in reason under the law to do otherwise.
the exercise of his profession, pursuing a
legitimate business. CA:
The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of
The shares of stocks are, thus, presumed to be Appeals.
the conjugal partnership property of the
petitioners. The private respondent failed to SC: Subsequently, on 7 November 1994, this
adduce evidence that the petitioner-husband Court, in G.R. No. L-117067, finding no reversible
acquired the stocks with his exclusive money. error committed by the appellate court in
affirming the dismissal of the RTC, affirmed the
The appellate court erred in concluding that the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
conjugal partnership is liable for the said account
of PBMCI. According to petitioner, the ruling of the RTC
shows that, when Alfredo died on 29 September
Article 121 provides: The conjugal partnership 1999, or at the time of the liquidation of the
shall be liable for: (1) All debts and obligations conjugal partnership, she had the right to be
contracted by the husband for the benefit of the reimbursed for the cost of the improvements on
conjugal partnership, and those contracted by the Alfredos lot.
wife, also for the same purpose, in the cases
where she may legally bind the partnership. She alleged that the cost of the improvements
amounted to P500,000.00; hence, one-half
For the conjugal partnership to be liable for a thereof should be reimbursed and paid by
liability that should appertain to the husband respondents as they are now the registered
alone, there must be a showing that some owners of Alfredos lot.
advantages accrued to the spouses.
She averred that respondents cannot claim lack
In this case, the private respondent failed to of knowledge about the fact that the
prove that the conjugal partnership of the improvements were constructed using conjugal
petitioners was benefited by the petitioner- funds as they had occupied one of the apartment
husbands act of executing a continuing guaranty buildings on Alfredos lot, and even paid rentals
and suretyship agreement with the private to petitioner.
respondent for and in behalf of PBMCI. The
contract of loan was between the private Petitioner prayed that respondents be ordered to
respondent and the PBMCI, solely for the benefit render an accounting from September, 1991, on
of the latter. No presumption can be inferred from the income of the boarding house constructed
the fact that when the petitioner-husband entered thereon which they had appropriated for
into an accommodation agreement or a contract themselves, and to remit one-half thereof as her
of surety, the conjugal partnership would thereby share. Finally, petitioner sought from respondents
be benefited. The private respondent was moral and exemplary damages, litigation and
burdened to establish that such benefit incidental expenses.
redounded to the conjugal partnership.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss,
contending that petitioner had no cause of action
against them, and that the cause of action was Complaint that they are the buyers of the subject
barred by prior judgment. premises, are not petitioners spouse nor can they
ever be deemed as the owner-spouse upon whom
Note: In Case of Emergency, please refer to this the obligation to reimburse petitioner for her
portion. costs rested.

RTC: It is the owner-spouse who has the obligation to

RTC rendered an Order, denying the Motion to reimburse the conjugal partnership or the spouse
Dismiss. who expended the acts or efforts, as the case
According to the RTC, no pronouncement as to may be. Otherwise stated, respondents do not
the improvements constructed on Alfredos lot has have the obligation to respect petitioners right to
been made in Civil Case No. 61327, and the be reimbursed.
payment of petitioners share in the conjugal
partnership constitutes a separate cause of The right of the respondents to acquire as buyers
action.A subsequent Order[11] dated 17 January the subject premises from alfredo under the
2003 was issued by the RTC, denying assailed Deed of Sale in Civil Case No. 61327 had
respondents Motion for Reconsideration. been laid to rest. This is because the validity of
the Deed of Sale had already been determined
CA: and upheld with finality.
Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case to the
Court of Appeals by way of a Petition for The petition is denied.
Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the 7. MBTC vs. Tan, GR No. 163712, Nov. 30,
RTC in denying the dismissal. 2006

On 16 August 2004, the Court of Appeals Facts:

rendered a Decision granting the Petition. It held On the application for extra-judicial foreclosure of
that petitioners Complaint is not the proper mortgage filed by herein petitioners Metropolitan
action for the respondent to enforce her right of Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) and its Vice
reimbursement of the cost of the improvements President Rogelio T. Uy (Uy), the Office of the
on the subject property. Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Oriental issued a
"Sheriffs Notice of Sale" setting on April 17, 1998
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for the sale at public auction of four mortgaged
Reconsideration thereon. parcels of land registered in the name of herein
respondent Jose B. Tan who was referred to in the
However, on 17 December 2004, the Court of title.
Appeals rendered a Resolution denying the
motion. A day before the scheduled public auction of the
Hence, the present recourse. mortgaged properties or on April 16, 1998,
respondent spouses Jose B. Tan and Eliza Go Tan
ISSUE: filed a complaint3 against petitioners, along with
WON respondents have an obligation to respect Albano L. Cuarto, Sheriff IV of the Office of the
her right to be reimbursed Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Oriental, for removal
of cloud on the title in question and injunction
HELD: before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
NO. While it made a reference to the right of the Oriental.
spouse as contemplated in Art. 120 22 of the
family code to be reimbursed for the cost of the As scheduled, the public auction of the foreclosed
improvements, the obligation to reimburse rests properties took place on April 17, 1998 following
on the spouse upon whom ownership of the which the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of
entire property is vested. There is no obligation Misamis Oriental issued a Sheriffs Certificate of
on the part of the purchaser of the property, in Sale in the name of petitioner Metrobank, the
case the property is sold by the owner-spouse. highest bidder.

Indeed, Article 120 provides the solution in Petitioners further alleged that the deeds of real
determining the ownership of the improvements estate mortgage, promissory notes, and credit
that are made on the separate property of the line agreements bore the signature of respondent
spouses at the expense of the partnership or Jose B. Tan either for himself or as attorney-in-fact
through the acts or efforts of either or both of his son Ariel Tan and, in one of them, his wife-
spouses. co-respondent Eliza Go Tans signature appeared.

Thus, when the cost of the improvement and any By way of Counterclaim, petitioners prayed for
resulting increase in value are more than the the award of attorneys fees, compensatory
value of the property at the time of the and/or moral damages, exemplary damages, and
improvement, the entire property of one of the other reliefs.
spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership,
subject to reimbursement of the value of the Crediting the testimony of respondent Jose B. Tan
property of the owner-spouse at the time of the denying having 1) executed and signed the two
improvement; otherwise, said property shall be amendments of the mortgage, 2) received the
retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, amount of P40,000,000, and 3) appeared before
likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of Notary Public Joel Pearanda who notarized11 the
the improvement.The subject property was mortgage for P40,000.00, and likewise crediting
precisely declared as the exclusive property of the testimony of respondent Eliza Go Tan denying
Alfredo on the basis of Article 120 of the Family that the signature appearing on the real estate
Code. mortgage dated November 5, 1992 was hers,12
and finding that the existing loans covered by
What is incontrovertible is that the respondents, real estate mortgages had been fully paid as of
despite the allegations contained in the July 1, 1997, defendant Metrobank had no basis
to be paid again through the extra-judicial words, proof of acquisition during the marriage is
foreclosure proceedings. a condition sine qua non for the operation of the
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership. No
Ruling of Misamis Oriental RTC Branch 38: such proof was offered nor presented in the case
Judgment in favor of respondents, disposing as at bar.
In fine, the extra-judicial foreclosure and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court subsequent sale of the mortgaged property
hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs covered by the title in question was valid.
spouses Jose B. Tan and Eliza G. Tan and against
the defendants, as follows: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
assailed decision of the appellate court is SET
Ruling of the Court of Appeals: ASIDE. Civil Case No. 98-225, "Jose B. Tan and
By Decision of November 21, 2003, the Court of Eliza Go Tan v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision and Company, et al.," filed before and raffled to
accordingly dismissed petitioners appeal. And it Branch 38 of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Oriental, is DISMISSED.

Issue: 8. Matthews vs. Taylor, Gr. No. 164584, June

Whether or not respondent Jose B. Tan is a party 22, 2009
to the questioned extra-judicial foreclosure and
public auction sale. Facts:
1. On June 30, 1988, respondent Benjamin, a
Ruling: British subject, married Joselyn, a 17-year old
Respondent Jose B. Tan insisted that he was not a Filipina.
party to the documents bearing on the grant of 2. On June 9, 1989, while their marriage was
the credit line, he pointing to the absence of his subsisting, Joselyn bought from Diosa M. Martin a
signature above his typewritten name on the lot (Boracay property).
Credit Line Agreements, promissory notes, 3. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin.
disclosure statements, and an Amendment of 4. Joselyn and Benjamin, also using the latters
Real Estate Mortgage. Respondents presented in funds, constructed improvements thereon and
evidence Promissory Notes Exhibits "B-2" and eventually converted the property to a vacation
"B-4" dated July 1, 1997 and June 24, 1997, and tourist resort known as the Admiral Ben Bow
respectively. Inn.
5. All required permits and licenses for the
All document-exhibits of petitioners which are operation of the resort were obtained in the name
original copies bear the signature of respondent of Ginna Celestino, Joselyns sister.
Jose B. Tan, however, as solidary co-debtor of his 6. However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling
sons Rey John Tan and Ariel Tan. And these out, and Joselyn ran away with Kim Philippsen.
documents were annotated at the back of the 7. On June 8, 1992, Joselyn executed a SPA in
title in question. favor of Benjamin, authorizing the latter to
maintain, sell, lease, and sub-lease and otherwise
In the absence of proof, any allegation, that the enter into contract with third parties with respect
signatures of respondent Jose B. Tan on the to their Boracay property.
abovementioned documents were forged, this 8. On July 20, 1992, Joselyn as lessor and
Court is constrained to uphold their genuineness. petitioner Philip Matthews as lessee, entered into
an Agreement of Lease involving the Boracay
As for the claim that respondent Eliza Go Tan did property for a period of 25 years, with an annual
not give her consent to the mortgage of the title rental of P12,000.00.
in question, the same is belied by her signature 9. Petitioner thereafter took possession of the
on Exhibit "18"-Real Estate Mortgage which is property and renamed the resort as Music Garden
annotated as Entry No. 174644 at the back of the Resort.
title. Her bare denial that the signature was 10. Claiming that the Agreement was null and
forged, without more, does not lie. void since it was entered into by Joselyn without
Benjamins consent, Benjamin instituted an
The property subject of the mortgage is action for Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of
registered in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of Lease with Damages against Joselyn and the
legal age, married to Rogelio Ruiz, Filipinos." petitioner.
Thus, title is registered in the name of Corazon 11. Benjamin claimed that his funds were used in
alone because the phrase "married to Rogelio the acquisition and improvement of the Boracay
Ruiz" is merely descriptive of the civil status of property, and coupled with the fact that he was
Corazon and should not be construed to mean Joselyns husband, any transaction involving said
that her husband is also a registered owner. property required his consent.
Furthermore, registration of the property in the
name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married to Issue:
Rogelio Ruiz" is not proof that such property was 1. Whether or not the Agreement of Lease of a
acquired during the marriage, and thus, is parcel of land entered into by a Filipino wife
presumed to be conjugal. The property could without the consent of her British husband is
have been acquired by Corazon while she was valid
still single, and registered only after her marriage 2. Whether or not Benjamin is the actual owner of
to Rogelio Ruiz. Acquisition of title and the property since he provided the funds used in
registration thereof are two different acts. The purchasing the same
presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code
that properties acquired during the marriage are Ruling:
presumed to be conjugal cannot apply in the
instant case. Before such presumption can apply, Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
it must first be established that the property was states:
in fact acquired during the marriage. In other
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, When the capital stock of MBS was increased on
no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed November 26, 1983, the Carandangs subscribed
except to individuals, corporations, or P345,000 from it, P293,250 from the said amount
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of was loaned by Quirino to the Carandangs. In the
the public domain. subsequent increase in MBS capital stock on
Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have March 3, 1989, the Carandangs subscribed again
been disqualified from acquiring lands of the to the increase in the amount of P93,750. But,
public domain. Hence, by virtue of the aforecited P43,125 out of the mentioned amount was again
constitutional provision, they are also disqualified loaned by Quirino.
from acquiring private lands. The primary
purpose of this constitutional provision is the When Quirino sent a demand letter to the
conservation of the national patrimony. Our Carandangs for the payment of the loan, the
fundamental law cannot be any clearer. The right Carandangs refused to pay. They contend that a
to acquire lands of the public domain is reserved pre-incorporation agreement was executed
only to Filipino citizens or corporations at least between Arcadio Carandang and Quirino,
sixty percent of the capital of which is owned by whereby Quirino promised to pay for the stock
Filipinos. subscriptions of the Arcadio without cost, in
consideration for Arcadios technical expertise,
The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are his newly purchased equipment, and his skill in
absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private repairing and upgrading radio/communication
lands in the Philippines, save only in equipment therefore, there is no indebtedness on
constitutionally recognized exceptions. There is the part of the Carandangs.
no rule more settled than this constitutional
prohibition, as more and more aliens attempt to Thereafter, Quirino filed a complaint seeking to
circumvent the provision by trying to own lands recover the P336,375 total amount of the loan
through another. together with damages. The RTC ruled in favor of
Quirino and ordered the Carandangs to pay the
Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of loan plus interest, attorneys fees, and costs of
Lease between Joselyn and petitioner. Benjamin, suit. The Carandangs appealed the trial courts
being an alien, is absolutely prohibited from decision to the CA, but the CA affirmed the same.
acquiring private and public lands in the The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed
Philippines. Considering that Joselyn appeared to by the Carandangs were also denied. Hence, this
be the designated "vendee" in the Deed of Sale appeal to the SC.
of said property, she acquired sole ownership
thereto. This is true even if we sustain Benjamins SPOUSES CARANDANG: Three of the four
claim that he provided the funds for such checks used to pay their stock subscriptions were
acquisition. By entering into such contract issued in the name of Milagros de Guzman, the
knowing that it was illegal, no implied trust was decedents wife. Thus, Milagros should be
created in his favor; no reimbursement for his considered as an indispensable party in the
expenses can be allowed; and no declaration can complaint. Being such, the failure to join Milagros
be made that the subject property was part of the as a party in the case should cause the dismissal
conjugal/community property of the spouses. In of the action by reason of a jurisprudence stating
any event, he had and has no capacity or that: (i)f a suit is not brought in the name of or
personality to question the subsequent lease of against the real party in interest, a motion to
the Boracay property by his wife on the theory dismiss may be filed on the ground that the
that in so doing, he was merely exercising the complaint states no cause of action."
prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal
property. To sustain such a theory would ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC should have
countenance indirect controversion of the dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of
constitutional prohibition. If the property were to action, considering that Milagros de Guzman,
be declared conjugal, this would accord the alien allegedly an indispensable party, was not
husband a substantial interest and right over the included as a party-plaintiff.
land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to
its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the HELD: No. Although the spouses Carandang were
Constitution does not permit him to have. correct in invoking the aforementioned doctrine,
the ground set forth entails an examination of
Liabilities of the Conjugal Partnership whether the parties presently pleaded are
interested in the outcome of the litigation, and
not whether all persons interested in such
9. Carandang vs. Heirs of Quirino de
outcome are actually pleaded. The first query
Guzman, GR No. 160347, Nov. 29, 2006
seeks to answer the question of whether Milagros
is a real party in interest, while the latter query is
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case reached the
asking if she is an indispensable party. Since the
Supreme Court as an appeal to the decision of
issue of this case calls for the definition of an
the CA ruling against the spouses Carandang and
indispensable party, invoking the
denying their motion for reconsideration. The CA
abovementioned doctrine is irrelevant to the case
affirmed the RTCs decision that Milagros de
because the doctrine talks about a real party in
Guzman, the decedents wife, is not an
interest and not an indispensable party.
indispensable party in the complaint, hence, her
Although it is important to take note that an
non-inclusion in the case does not warrant a
indispensable party is also a real party in interest.
dismissal of the complaint.
FACTS: Spouses Carandang and the decedent
> Real party in interest the party who stands to
Quirino de Guzman were stockholders and
be benefited or injured by the judgment of the
corporate officers of Mabuhay Broadcasting
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
System (MBS). The Carandangs have equities at
> Indispensable party a party in interest without
54 % while Quirino has 46%.
whom no final determination can be had of an
> Necessary party one who is not indispensable applied. Thus, dismissal is warranted only if the
but who ought to be joined as a party if complete pro-forma party not joined in the complaint is an
relief is to be accorded as to those already indispensable party.
parties, or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of the action Under Art. 147 of the Civil Code which was
> Pro-forma parties those who are required to superceded by Art. 108 of the Family Code, the
be joined as co-parties in suits by or against conjugal partnership shall be governed by the
another party as may be provided by the rules on the contract of partnership. Thus,
applicable substantive law or procedural rule. Milagros is a co-owner of the subject personal
An example is provided by Section 4, Rule 3 of property in this case the credit incurred by
the Rules of Court: spouses Carandang. Being co-owners of the
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife alleged credit, Quirino and Milagros de Guzman
shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by may separately bring an action for the recovery
law. thereof.
Pro-forma parties can either be indispensable,
necessary or neither indispensable nor necessary. In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-
The third case occurs if, for example, a husband owners are real parties in interest. However,
files an action to recover a property which he pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and
claims to be part of his exclusive property. The relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may
wife may have no legal interest in such property, bring an action, any kind of action, for the
but the rules nevertheless require that she be recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore, only
joined as a party. one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who
filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned
Quirino and Milagros de Guzman were married property, is an indispensable party thereto. The
before the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 other co-owners are not indispensable parties.
August 1988. As they did not execute any They are not even necessary parties, for a
marriage settlement, the regime of conjugal complete relief can be accorded in the suit even
partnership of gains govern their property without their participation, since the suit is
relations. presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all
All property acquired during the marriage,
whether the acquisition appears to have been Thus, Milagros de Guzman is not an indispensable
made, contracted or registered in the name of party in the action for the recovery of the
one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal allegedly loaned money to the spouses
unless the contrary is proved. Credits are Carandang. As such, she need not have been
personal properties, acquired during the time the impleaded in said suit, and dismissal of the suit is
loan or other credit transaction was executed. not warranted by her not being a party thereto.
Therefore, credits loaned during the time of the (The Civ Pro issue was not the main issue in the
marriage are presumed to be conjugal property. case.)

Assuming that the four checks are credits, they 10. SBTC vs. Mar Tierra Corp., GR No.
are assumed to be conjugal properties of Quirino 143382, Nov. 29, 2006
and Milagros. There being no evidence to the
contrary, such presumption subsists. As such, Facts:
Quirino de Guzman, being a co-owner of specific Respondent Mar Tierra Corporation, through its
partnership property, is certainly a real party in president, Wilfrido C. Martinez, applied for a
interest. P12,000,000 credit accommodation with
petitioner Security Bank and Trust Company.
Now, with regard to the discussion on the effect Petitioner approved the application and entered
of non-inclusion of parties in the complaint filed: into a credit line agreement with respondent
in indispensable parties, when an indispensable corporation. It was secured by an indemnity
party is not before the court, the action should be agreement executed by individual respondents
dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party Wilfrido C. Martinez, Miguel J. Lacson and Ricardo
renders all subsequent actuations of the court A. Lopa who bound themselves jointly and
void, for want of authority to act, not only as to severally with respondent corporation for the
the absent parties but even as to those present. payment of the loan.
For necessary parties, the non-inclusion of a
necessary party does not prevent the court from Respondent corporation was not able to pay all its
proceeding in the action, and the judgment debt balance as it suffered business reversals,
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the eventually ceasing operations. Petitioner filed a
rights of such necessary party. Non-compliance complaint against respondent corp and individual
with the order for the inclusion of a necessary respondents.
party would not warrant the dismissal of the
complaint. Lastly, for pro-forma parties, the RTC:
general rule under Section 11, Rule 3 must be Unable to collect the balance of the loan,
followed: such non-joinder is not a ground for petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money
dismissal. Hence, in a case concerning an action with a prayer for preliminary attachment against
to recover a sum of money, we held that the respondent corporation and individual
failure to join the spouse in that case was not a respondents in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
jurisdictional defect. The non-joinder of a spouse Makati, Branch 66. It was docketed as Civil Case
does not warrant dismissal as it is merely a No. 3947.
formal requirement which may be cured by
amendment. Subsequently, however, petitioner had the case
dismissed with respect to individual respondents
Conversely, in the instances that the pro-forma Lacson and Lopa,2leaving Martinez as the
parties are also indispensable or necessary remaining individual respondent.
parties, the rules concerning indispensable or
necessary parties, as the case may be, should be
RTC issued a writ of attachment on all real and
personal properties of respondent corporation FACTS:
and individual respondent Martinez including the Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the
conjugal house and lot of the spouses. It held registered owners of a parcel of land with
respondent corporation and individual respondent improvements. Arturo made a Receipt and
Martinez jointly and severally liable to petitioner Memorandum of Agreement in favor of
for P5,304,000 plus 12% interest per annum and Macatangay, binding himself to sell to latter the
5% penalty commencing on June 21, 1982 until subject property and not to offer the same to any
fully paid, plus P10,000 as attorneys fees. But it other party within 30 days from date. Full
found that it did not redound to the benefit of his payment would also be effected as soon as
family, hence, it ordered the lifting of the possession of the property shall have been turned
attachment on the conjugal house and lot of the over to Macatangay. Macatangay gave an earnest
spouses Martinez. money amounting to P5,000.00 to be deducted
from the purchase price of P1,300,000.00 in favor
CA: of the spouses.
Dissatisfied with the RTC decision, petitioner
appealed to the CA but the appellate court Subsequently, Arturo and Esther had a marital
affirmed the trial courts decision in toto. squabble brewing at that time and Macatangay,
Petitioner sought reconsideration but it was to protect his interest, made an annotation in the
denied. Hence, this petition. title of the property. He then sent a letter
informing them of his readiness to pay the full
ISSUE: amount of the purchase price. Esther, through her
WON the conjugal partnership may be held liable SPA, executed in favor of Macatangay, a Contract
for an indemnity agreement entered into by the to sell the property to the extent of her conjugal
husband to accommodate a third party. interest for the sum of P650,000 less the sum
already received by her and Arturo. She agreed to
HELD: surrender the property to Macatangay within 20
No. SC upheld the CA. Under Article 161(1) of the days along with the deed of absolute sale upon
Civil Code, the conjugal partnership is liable for full payment, while he promised to pay the
all debts and obligations contracted by the balance of the purchase price for P1, 290,000.00
husband for the benefit of the conjugal after being placed in possession of the property.
partnership. Macatangay informed them that he was ready to
pay the amount in full. The couple failed to
The court ruled in Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. de deliver the property so he sued the spouses.
Garcia that, in acting as a guarantor or surety for
another, the husband does not act for the benefit ISSUE:
of the conjugal partnership as the benefit is Whether or not there was a contract of sale
clearly intended for a third party. between Arturo and Galicano?

In Ayala Investment and Development RULING OF THE RTC:

Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that, if Macatangay filed a complaint against the
the husband himself is the principal obligor in the petitioner Abalos for specific performance to
contract, i.e., the direct recipient of the money execute in favor of herein respondent a deed of
and services to be used in or for his own business sale over the subject property. The Regional Trial
or profession, the transaction falls within the term Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint of
obligations for the benefit of the conjugal Macatangay for specific performance. It ruled that
partnership. In other words, where the husband the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) ostensibly
contracts an obligation on behalf of the family issued by Esther in favor of Arturo was void as it
business, there is a legal presumption that such was falsified. Hence, the court concluded that the
obligation redounds to the benefit of the conjugal SPA could not have authorized Arturo to sell the
partnership. property to respondent. The trial court also noted
that the check issued by respondent to cover the
On the other hand, if the money or services are earnest money was dishonored due to
given to another person or entity and the insufficiency of funds and while it was replaced
husband acted only as a surety or guarantor, the with another check by respondent, there is no
transaction cannot by itself be deemed an showing that the second check was issued as
obligation for the benefit of the conjugal payment for the earnest money on the property.
partnership. It is for the benefit of the principal
debtor and not for the surety or his family. RULING OF THE CA:
On appeal taken by respondent Macatangay, the
In the case at bar, the principal contract, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial
credit line agreement between petitioner and court. It ruled that the SPA in favor of Arturo,
respondent corporation, was solely for the benefit assuming that it was void, cannot affect the
of the latter. The accessory contract (the transaction between Esther and respondent. The
indemnity agreement) under which individual appellate court ratiocinated that it was by virtue
respondent Martinez assumed the obligation of a of the SPA executed by Esther, in favor of her
surety for respondent corporation was similarly sister, that the sale of the property to respondent
for the latters benefit. Petitioner had the burden was effected. On the other hand, the appellate
of proving that the conjugal partnership of the court considered the RMOA executed by Arturo in
spouses Martinez benefited from the transaction. favor of respondent valid to effect the sale of
It failed to discharge that burden. Arturos conjugal share in the property

Administration of the Conjugal RULING OF THE COURT:

Dissatisfied with the appellate courts disposition
Partnership Property of the case, petitioner Abalos seeks a reversal of
its decision. The Supreme Court reversed the
11. Abalos vs. Macatangay, Jr., GR No. decision of the CA. It ruled that Arturos action for
155043, September 30, 2004; 439 SCRA 649 specific performance must fail. Even on the
10 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
supposition that the parties only disposed of their incapacity of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., assumption of
respective shares in the property, the sale, sole powers of administration of conjugal
assuming that it exists, is still void, the right of properties, and authorization to sell the same.
the husband or the wife to one-half of the Therein, the petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza averred
conjugal assets does not vest until the liquidation the physical and mental incapacity of her
of the conjugal partnership. Nemo dat qui non husband, who was then confined for intensive
habet. No one can give what he has not. medical care and treatment at the Iloilo Doctors
The husband, even if he is statutorily designated Hospital. She signified to the court her desire to
as administrator of the conjugal partnership, assume sole powers of administration of their
cannot validly alienate or encumber any real conjugal properties. She also alleged that her
property of the conjugal partnership without the husbands medical treatment and hospitalization
wifes consent. Similarly, the wife cannot dispose expenses were piling up, accumulating to several
of any property belonging to the conjugal hundred thousands of pesos already.
partnership without the conformity of the
husband. The law is explicit that the wife cannot - June 14, 1991, Branch 32 of the R.T.C. of Iloilo
bind the conjugal partnership without the City issued an Order (Annex C) finding the
husbands consent, except in cases provided by petition in Spec. Proc. No. 4691 to be sufficient in
law. form and substance, and setting the hearing
In all instances, the present law specifically thereof for June 20, 1991.
requires the written consent of the other spouse,
or authority of the court for the disposition or Ruling of RTC
encumbrance of conjugal partnership property - June 20, 1991, Branch 32 of the RTC of Iloilo City
without which, the disposition or encumbrance rendered its decision.
shall be void. 1) declaring Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., petitioners
husband, to be incapacitated and unable to
Sale/Mortgage of properties of the participate in the administration of conjugal
conjugal partnership needs the consent 2) authorizing petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza to
of the spouses; Otherwise, void assume sole powers of administration of their
conjugal properties; and
12. Jose Uy, et. al., vs. CA, et. al., GR No. 3) authorizing aforesaid petitioner to sell Lot No.
109557, November 29, 2000 4291 of the Cadastral Survey of Iloilo, situated in
Iloilo City and covered by TCT No. 47337 issued in
Facts: the names of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. and Gilda L.
Background: The case is an appeal via certiorari Jardeleza and the buildings standing thereof.
from the decision of the Court of Appeals and its
resolution denying reconsideration, reversing that Petitioners Action:
of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo, Branch 32 and -On June 24, 1991, herein petitioner Teodoro
declaring void the special proceedings instituted Jardeleza, being unaware and not knowing that a
therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner decision has already been rendered filed his
Gilda L. Jardeleza, in view of the comatose Opposition to the proceedings before Branch 32
condition of her husband, Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., -On July 3, 1991, herein petitioner Teodoro
with the approval of the court, to dispose of their Jardeleza filed a motion for reconsideration of the
conjugal property in favor of co-petitioners, their judgment. He propounded the argument that the
daughter and son in law, for the ostensible petition for declaration of incapacity, assumption
purpose of financial need in the personal, of sole powers of administration, and authority to
business and medical expenses of her sell the conjugal properties was essentially a
incapacitated husband. petition for guardianship of the person and
properties of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. As such, it
Relevant Dates: cannot be prosecuted in accordance with the
-March 25, 1991, Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. is provisions on summary proceedings set out in
suffering of a stroke which left him comatose and Article 253 of the Family Code. RTC denied the
bereft of any motor or mental faculties. petition, hence appealed to CA

-June 6, 1991 Teodoro Jardeleza(son), upon Ruling of Court of Appeal

learning that one piece of real property belonging During the pendency of the motion, Gilda sold the
to the senior Jardeleza spouses was about to be property to her daughter and son in law. Upon
sold , filed a petition before the R.T.C. of Iloilo the appeal by Teodoro, CA reversed the decision
City, Branch 25 of the lower court. Hence, this petition.

The petitioner averred therein that the present Issue:

physical and mental incapacity of Dr. Ernesto WON petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza as the wife of
Jardeleza, Sr. prevent him from competently Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. may assume sole powers of
administering his properties, and in order to administration of the conjugal property under
prevent the loss and dissipation of the Jardelezas Article 124 of the Family Code and dispose of a
real and personal assets, there was a need for a parcel of land with its improvements.
court-appointed guardian to administer said
properties and guardianship be in favour of Gilda Ruling of Supreme Court
Ledesma Jardeleza, wife of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, SC ruled in favor of Teodoro. The rule on
Sr. It was further prayed that in the meantime, no summary proceedings does not apply to cases
property of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. be where the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated
negotiated, mortgaged or otherwise alienated to or incompetent to give consent. In this case, trial
third persons. court found that subject spouse was incompetent
who was in a comatose condition and with a
-June 13, 1991, respondent Gilda L. Jardeleza diagnosis of brain stem infract. Hence, the
herself filed a petition docketed as Special proper remedy is a judicial guardianship
Proceeding NO. 4691, before Branch 32 of the proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court. The
R.T.C. of Iloilo City, regarding the declaration of law provides that wife who assumes sole powers
11 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
of administration has the same powers and duties On January 10, 1995, the RTC Valenzuela (Branch
as a guardian. Consequently, a spouse who 71) rendered its judgement on the case filed by
desires to sell real property as administrator of Berlina against Spouses Bautista stating:
the conjugal property, must observe the 1. Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
procedure for the sale of the wards estate March 3, 1988 executed by Pedro M. Silva null
required of judicial guardians, and not the and void and the resulting Transfer Certificate of
summary judicial proceedings under FC. SC Title No. V-2765 of Valenzuela Registry in the
further held that such incapacity of the trial court name of Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista
to provide for an opportunity to be heard is null cancelled and that Transfer Certificate of Title No.
and void on the ground of lack of due process. B-37189 reinstated.
2. Ordering respondents to reconvey the
13. Bautista vs. Silva, 502 SCRA 334, Sept. property covered by the said Transfer Certificate
19, 2006 of Title No. V-2765 together with the
improvements thereon to the petitioner.
Background: 3. Condemning the respondents to pay the
To establish his status as a buyer for value in petitioner the sum of P5,000.00 in the concept of
good faith, a person dealing with land registered reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of suit.
in the name of and occupied by the seller need
only show that he relied on the face of the seller's RULING OF THE CA:
certificate of title. But for a person dealing with Spouses Bautista filed an appeal with the CA
land registered in the name of and occupied by which, in its November 21, 2001 Decision,
the seller whose capacity to sell is restricted, affirmed in toto the RTC decision; and, in a
such as by Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code Resolution dated February 27, 2003, denied the
or Article 124 of the Family Code, he must show Motion for Reconsideration.
that he inquired into the latter's capacity to sell in
order to establish himself as a buyer for value in ISSUE:
good faith. The extent of his inquiry depends on 1. WON petitioners are considered as
the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of purchasers in good faith and for value having
capacity consists of a special power of attorney relied upon a SPA which appears legal, valid and
duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of genuine on its face
such public document already constitutes 2. Whether the nullity of the deed of sale
sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of includes the one half share of the husband gratia
attorney is provided or there is one but there argument (for the sake of argument) that the SPA
appear flaws in its notarial acknowledgment mere is a forgery and the deed of sale executed by the
inspection of the document will not do; the buyer husband is null and void
must show that his investigation went beyond the
document and into the circumstances of its RULING OF THE SC:
execution. There is no merit to petitioners claim that they
are purchasers in good faith. There was positive
Appealed by Petition for Review on Certiorari and convincing evidence that respondent did not
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the sign the SPA. The SPA, being a forgery, did not
November 21, 2001 Decision of the Court of vest in Pedro any authority to alienate the subject
Appeals (CA) which affirmed in toto the January property without the consent of respondent.
10, 1995 Decision of the Regional Trial Court Absent such marital consent, the deed of sale
(RTC) and the February 27, 2003 CA Resolution was a nullity.
which denied the motion for reconsideration filed
by Spouses Bautista. The petitioners are not buyers in good faith. To
prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled
FACTS: land need only show that he relied on the face of
Spouses Berlina Silva and Pedro Silva (Pedro) the title to the property. He need not prove that
were the owners of a parcel of land with a he made further inquiry for he is not obliged to
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No B-37189, explore beyond the four corners of the title. Such
which was registered on August 14, 1980 in their degree of proof of good faith, however, is
names. On March 3, 1988, Pedro, thru a Special sufficient only when the following conditions
Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by concur; (1) the seller is the registered owner of
Berlina in his favor, executed a Deed of Absolute the land; (2) the latter is in possession thereof;
Sale over the said parcel of land in favor of (3) at the time of the sale, the buyer was not
Spouses Bautista. Berlina, at the time of sale was aware of any claim or interest of some other
in Germany working as a Nurse. After the person in the property or of any defect or
execution of sale, TCT No B-37189 was cancelled restriction in the title of the seller or in his
and in lieu thereof, TCT No. V-27655 was issued capacity to convey title to the property.
under the names of Spouses Bautista on March 4,
1988. Any absence on one or two of the foregoing, then
the law itself puts the buyer on notice and obliges
A civil case in RTC Valenzuela (Branch 71) for the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence
annulment of Dead of Absolute Sale and TCT No. by scrutinizing the certificate of title and
V-27655 and Reconveyance and Damages was examining all factual circumstances in order to
filed by Berlina against Spouses Bautista. determine the sellers title and capacity to
transfer any interest in the property. Failure to
Based on the evidence presented, the RTC also exercise such degree of precaution makes him a
found that the signature appearing on the Special buyer in bad faith. To prove good faith then,
Power of Attorney (SPA) as that of Berlina is a petitioners must show that they inquired not only
forgery, and that consequently the Deed of into the title of Pedro but also into his capacity to
Absolute Sale executed by Pedro in favor of sell.
Spouses Bautista is not authorized by Berlina.
In the present case, petitioners knew that Berlina
RULING OF THE RTC: was in Germany at the time they were buying the
property and the SPA relied upon by petitioners
12 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
has a defective notarial acknowledgement. The HELD:
SPA was only a photocopy and did not contain The RTC declared that the SPA in the hands of Ma.
notarial seal. There being no notarial seal, the Elena was a forgery, based on its finding, among
signature of the notary public on the certificate others, that Dionisio had been out of the country
was incomplete making it a mere private at the time of the execution of the SPA.
document in which petitioners cannot foist as a Moreover, the RTC rejected the defense of the
banner of good faith. petitioners that they were buyers in good faith
because of their failure to exercise ordinary
As to the second issue, the petitioners cannot prudence, including demanding from Ma. Elena a
retain the portion of Pedro Silva in the subject court order authorizing her to sell the properties
property. It is well-settled that the nullity of sale similar to the order that the Los Baos Rural Bank
of conjugal property contracted by the husband had required before accepting the mortgage of
without the consent of the wife affects the entire the property. It observed that they had appeared
property and not just the share of the wife. to be in a hurry to consummate the transaction
despite the brokers advice that they first consult
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The a lawyer before buying the property; that with
Decision dated November 21, 2001 and ordinary prudence, they should first have
Resolution dated February 27, 2003 of the Court obtained the owners duplicate copies of the TCTs
of Appeal are AFFIRMED. before paying the full amount of the
consideration; and that the sale was void
14. Spouses Aggabao vs. Dionisio Parulan, pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code.
Jr., et. al., Gr. No. 165803, September 1,
On March 18, 1991, an absolute sale of land CA DECISION: AFFIRMED the decision of
was executed between Ma. Elena Parulan and the the RTC.
spouses Rex and Concepcion Aggabao. The two
parcels of land subject of the sale were part of HELD:
the conjugal property of the estranged couple Ma. CA opined that Article 124 of the Family Code
Elena Parulan and Dionision Parulan. Among the applied because Dionisio had not consented to
documents presented by Ma. Elena to the the sale of the conjugal property by Ma. Elena;
Aggabaos was a copy of the special power of and that the RTC correctly found the SPA to be a
attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Dionisio forgery.
authorizing Ma. Elena to sell the property.

Ma. Elena did not turn over the duplicate

owners copy of TCT# 63376 of one of the lots to SUPREME COURT CASE (Petition for Review on
the petitioners. The spouses later learned that Certiorari)
the said copy was in the custody of Atty. Jeremy
Parulan, brother of Dionisio, who also had an SPA ISSUES:
authorizing him to sell the lots. Despite this and 1) Whether or not Article 173 of the Civil Code
other past issues related to the property, the and not Article 124 of the Family Code should
spouses fully paid the lots to Ma. Elena. apply to the sale of the conjugal property
executed without the consent of Dionisio.
On April 15, 1991, Dionisio through Atty. 2) Whether or not the petitioners are in good faith
Parulan, commenced a civil action praying for the at the time of their purchase of the property.
declaration of the nullity of the deed of absolute
sale and the cancellation of the title issued to the SC DECISION:
petitioners by virtue thereof. The petitioners also SUSTAINED the decision of the CA.
filed their own action for specific performance DENIED the petition for review on certiorari.
against the petitioners on July 12, 1991.
MAIN ISSUE: The vendees were not buyers in good faith,
Whether the sale of conjugal property made by because they did not exercise the necessary
respondent wife, Ma. Elena Parulan, by presenting prudence to inquire into the wifes authority to
a special power of attorney to sell (SPA) sell. We hold that the sale of conjugal property
purportedly executed by respondent husband, without the consent of the husband was not
Dionisio Parulan, in her favor was validly made to merely voidable but void; hence, it could not be
the vendees (the spouses Aggabaos), who ratified.
allegedly acted in good faith and paid the full
purchase price, despite the showing by the 1) Article 173 of the Family Code was already
husband that his signature on the SPA had been repealed by Article 254 of the Family Code. Since
forged and that the SPA had been executed the sale was executed on March 18, 1991 after
during his absence from the country. the effectivity of the Family Code, the provisions
of the Family Code shall apply. Thus the proper
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CASE (Parulan vs law is Article 124 of the Family Code which
Aggabao) provides that:

RTC DECISION: In the event that one spouse is incapacitated

IN FAVOR of Dionisio Parulan without prejudice to or otherwise unable to participate in the
any action that may be filed by the Sps. Aggabao administration of the conjugal properties, the
against co-defendant Ma. Elena Parulan for the other spouse may assume sole powers of
amounts they paid her for the purchase of the administration. These powers do not include
subject lots. ANNULLED the deed of sale for disposition or encumbrance without authority of
want of the written consent of respondent the court or the written consent of the other
husband Dionisio Parulan, Jr. spouse. In the absence of such authority or

13 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be common children because the offending spouse
void does not have any right to any share of the net
profits earned, pursuant to Articles 63, No. (2)
2) It is true that a buyer of registered land needs and 43, No. (2) of the Family Code.
only to show that he has relied on the face of the
certificate of title to the property, for he is not The petitioner claims that the court a quo is
required to explore beyond what the certificate wrong when it applied Article 129 of the Family
indicates on its face. Code, instead of Article 102. He confusingly
argues that Article 102 applies because there is
Yet, it ought to be plain enough to the petitioners no other provision under the Family Code which
that the issue was whether or not they had defines net profits earned subject of forfeiture as
diligently inquired into the authority of Ma. Elena a result of legal separation.
to convey the property, not whether or not the
TCT had been valid and authentic, as to which ISSUES:
there was no doubt. Thus the SC cannot side 1. Whether Art 102 on dissolution of absolute
with the petitioners. community or Art 129 on dissolution of conjugal
partnership of gains is applicable in this case.
What was required of them by the appellate Art 129 will govern.
court, which the SC affirms, was merely to 2. Whether the offending spouse acquired vested
investigate as any prudent vendee should the rights overof the properties in the conjugal
authority of Lolita to sell the property and to bind partnership NO.
the partnership. They had knowledge of facts that 3. Is the computation of net profits earned in
should have led them to inquire and to the conjugal partnership of gains the same with
investigate, in order to acquaint themselves with the computation of net profits earned in the
possible defects in her title. The law requires absolute community? NO.
them to act with the diligence of a prudent
person; in this case, their only prudent course of RATIO:
action was to investigate whether respondent had 1. First, since the spouses were married prior to
indeed given his consent to the sale and the promulgation of the current family code, the
authorized his wife to sell the property. default rule is that In the absence of marriage
settlements, or when the same are void, the
Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership's system of relative community or conjugal
Assets and Liabilities partnership of gains as established in this Code,
shall govern the property relations between
husband and wife.
15. Quiao vs. Quiao, G.R. No. 176556, July 4,
Second, since at the time of the dissolution of the
spouses marriage the operative law is already
the Family Code, the same applies in the instant
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The
case and the applicable law in so far as the
petitioner seeks to set aside the Regional Trial
liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and
Court (RTC), Branch 1, Butuan City. In lieu of
liabilities is concerned is Article 129 of the Family
Resolution defining the net profits subject of the
Code in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family
forfeiture as a result of the decree of legal
separation in accordance with the provision of
Article 102(4) of the Family Code, or alternatively,
2. The petitioner is saying that since the property
in accordance with the provisions of Article 176 of
relations between the spouses is governed by the
the Civil Code.
regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains under the
Civil Code, the petitioner acquired vested rights
Rita C. Quiao (Rita) filed a complaint for legal
over half of the properties of the Conjugal
separation against petitioner Brigido B. Quiao
Partnership of Gains, pursuant to Article 143 of
(Brigido). RTC rendered a decision declaring the
the Civil Code, which provides: All property of
legal separation thereby awarding the custody of
the conjugal partnership of gains is owned in
their 3 minor children in favor of Rita and all
common by the husband and wife.
remaining properties shall be divided equally
between the spouses subject to the respective
While one may not be deprived of his vested
legitimes of the children and the payment of the
right, he may lose the same if there is due
unpaid conjugal liabilities.
process and such deprivation is founded in law
and jurisprudence.
Brigidos share, however, of the net profits
earned by the conjugal partnership is forfeited in
In the present case, the petitioner was accorded
favor of the common children because Brigido is
his right to due process. First, he was well-aware
the offending spouse.
that the respondent prayed in her complaint that
all of the conjugal properties be awarded to her.
Neither party filed a motion for reconsideration
In fact, in his Answer, the petitioner prayed that
and appeal within the period 270 days later or
the trial court divide the community assets
after more than nine months from the
between the petitioner and the respondent as
promulgation of the Decision, the petitioner filed
circumstances and evidence warrant after the
before the RTC a Motion for Clarification, asking
accounting and inventory of all the community
the RTC to define the term Net Profits Earned.
properties of the parties. Second, when the
decision for legal separation was promulgated,
Ruling of RTC:
the petitioner never questioned the trial courts
RTC held that the phrase NET PROFIT EARNED
ruling forfeiting what the trial court termed as
denotes the remainder of the properties of the
net profits, pursuant to Article 129(7) of the
parties after deducting the separate properties of
Family Code. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim
each [of the] spouse and the debts. It further
being deprived of his right to due process.
held that after determining the remainder of the
3. When a couple enters into a regime of absolute
properties, it shall be forfeited in favor of the
community, the husband and the wife become
14 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. married before Mayor Vergel Aguilar of Las Pias
Whatever property each spouse brings into the City.
marriage, and those acquired during the marriage
(except those excluded under Article 92 of the On 30 May 2001, petitioner filed an action for
Family Code) form the common mass of the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against
couples properties. And when the couples respondent, citing psychological incapacity under
marriage or community is dissolved, that Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner alleged
common mass is divided between the spouses, or that respondent failed in her marital obligation to
their respective heirs, equally or in the proportion give love and support to him, and had abandoned
the parties have established, irrespective of the her responsibility to the family, choosing instead
value each one may have originally owned. to go on shopping sprees and gallivanting with
her friends that depleted the family assets.
In this case, assuming arguendo that Art 102 is Petitioner further alleged that respondent was not
applicable, since it has been established that the faithful, and would at times become violent and
spouses have no separate properties, what will be hurt him.
divided equally between them is simply the net
profits. And since the legal separationshare Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a
decision of Brigido states that the in the net petition for divorce/dissolution of her marriage
profits shall be awarded to the children, Brigido with petitioner, which was granted by the
will still be left with nothing. Superior Court of California on 25 May 2001.
Petitioner also learned that on 5 October 2001,
On the other hand, when a couple enters into a respondent married a certain Manuel V.
regime of conjugal partnership of gains under Alcantara.
Article142 of the Civil Code, the husband and
the wife place in common fund the fruits of their On 30 April 2002, the Office of the Las Pias
separate property and income from their work or prosecutor found that there were no indicative
industry, and divide equally, upon the dissolution facts of collusion between the parties and the
of the marriage or of the partnership, the net case was set for trial on the merits.
gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately by
either spouse during the marriage. From the Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), a clinical
foregoing provision, each of the couple has his psychologist, submitted a psychological report
and her own property and debts. The law does establishing that respondent was suffering from
not intend to effect a mixture or merger of those Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was
debts or properties between the spouses. Rather, deeply ingrained in her system since her early
it establishes a complete separation of capitals. formative years. Dr. Tayag found that
respondents disorder was long-lasting and by
In the instant case, since it was already nature, incurable.
established by the trial court that the spouses
have no separate properties, there is nothing to Ruling of the RTC:
return to any of them. The listed properties above The RTC granted the petition for the declaration
are considered part of the conjugal partnership. of the nullity of the marriage as well as the
Thus, ordinarily, what remains in the above-listed dissolution of the property regime absolute
properties should be divided equally between the community of property with respect to Article
spouses and/or their respective heirs. However, 50 and 51 of the Family Code.
since the trial court found the petitioner the guilty
party, his share from the net profits of the Petitioner filed a motion for partial
conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the
common children, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the absolute community of property and the ruling
Family Code. Again, lest we be confused, like in that the decree of annulment shall only be issued
the absolute community regime, nothing will be upon compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the
returned to the guilty party in the conjugal Family Code.
partnership regime, because there is no separate
property which may be accounted for in the guilty The RTC partially granted the motion and
partys favor. modified the previous ruling with respect to the
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial dissolution of the absolute community of
Court, Branch 1 of Butuan City is AFFIRMED. marriage stating that - A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE
Acting on the Motion for Clarification dated July 7, NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after
2006 in the Regional Trial Court, the Order dated liquidation, partition and distribution of the
January 8, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court is parties properties under Article 147 of the Family
hereby CLARIFIED in accordance with the above Code.
discussions. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari

Exclusive Cohabitation of Capacitated Ruling of the CA:

Persons Without Marriage; Cohabitation No ruling of the CA in this case. The petitioner
here invoke Rule 45 of the Rule in Civil Procedure
under a Void Marriage
which is about the Appeal by Certiorari to the
Supreme Court which provides that - A party
16. Alain M. Dio vs. Ma. Caridad L. Dio, desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment
GR. No. 178044, January 19, 2011 or final order or resolution of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial
Facts: Court or other courts whenever authorized by
Alain M. Dio (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L. Dio law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified
(respondent) were childhood friends and petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall
sweethearts. They started living together in 1984 raise only questions of law which must be
until they decided to separate in 1994. In 1996, distinctly set forth.
petitioner and respondent decided to live
together again. On 14 January 1998, they were Issue:

15 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
The sole issue in this case is whether the trial correct the TCTs, if they were not married as they
court erred when it ordered that a decree of claimed.
absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued
after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the Ruling of the CA:
parties properties under Article 147 of the Family The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA
Code. ruled that Aguilas statement in her petition is not
a judicial admission. The CA pointed out that the
petition was filed on 7 October 2003, but Aguila
Ruling of the Supreme Court: found the Discovered Properties only on 17 April
The court affirmed the decision of the RTC with a 2007 or before the promulgation of the RTC
modification that that the decree of absolute decision. Thus, the CA concluded that Aguila was
nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon palpably mistaken in her petition and it would be
finality of the trial courts decision without waiting unfair to punish her over a matter that she had
for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of no knowledge of at the time she made the
the parties properties under Article 147 of the admission.
Family Code.
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the Whether Rubina owns the Discovered Properties
following elements must be present:
1. The man and the woman must be capacitated Ruling of the Supreme Court:
to marry each other; No. On both Salas and Rubina's contention that
2. They live exclusively with each other as Rubina owns the Discovered Properties, we
husband and wife; and likewise find the contention unmeritorious. The
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, TCTs state that "Juan S. Salas, married to Rubina
or their marriage is void. C. Salas" is the registered owner of the
Discovered Properties. A Torrens title is generally
All these elements are present in this case and a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the
there is no question that Article 147 of the Family land referred to, because there is a strong
Code applies to the property relations between presumption that it is valid and regularly issued.
petitioner and respondent. The phrase "married to" is merely descriptive of
We agree with petitioner that the trial court erred the civil status of the registered owner.
in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of Furthermore, Salas did not initially dispute the
marriage shall be issued only after liquidation, ownership of the Discovered Properties in his
partition and distribution of the parties opposition to the manifestation. It was only when
properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. Rubina intervened that Salas supported Rubina's
statement that she owns the Discovered
17. Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. Vs. Eden Villena Properties.
Aguila, G.R. No. 202370, September 23,
2013 Considering that Rubina failed to prove her title
or her legal interest in the Discovered Properties,
Facts: she has no right to intervene in this case. The
Juan Salas and Eden Aguila were married in Rules of Court provide that only "a person who
September 1985. Five months after, Aguila gave has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or
birth to their daughter, Josan Jiselle. Salas left in the success of either of the parties, or an
their conjugal dwelling and since then no longer interest against both, or is so situated as to be
communicated with Aguila or their daughter. In adversely affected by a distribution or other
2003, Aguila filed a petition for nullity of disposition of property in the custody of the court
marriage, stating that they have no conjugal or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court,
properties whatsoever. be allowed to intervene in the action."
In Dio v. Dio, we held that Article 147 of the
In 2007, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Family Code applies to the union of parties who
the nullity of marriage. After this declaration, are legally capacitated and not barred by any
Aguila filed a manifestation stating that she impediment to contract marriage, but whose
discovered two properties belonging to Salas. The marriage is nonetheless declared void under
registered owner of the Discovered properties is Article 36 of the Family Code, as in this case.
Juan S. Salas, married to Rubina C. Salas. Article 147 of the Family Code provides:
Rubina is Salas common-law wife. The RTC
granted the petition of the said discovered ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are
properties that are among the conjugal properties capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
to be partitioned and distributed between Salas with each other as husband and wife without the
and Aguila. However, Rubina filed a Complaint-in- benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
Intervention, claiming that the Discovered their wages and salaries shall be owned by them
Properties are her paraphernal properties. She in equal shares and the property acquired by both
claims that she authorized her brother to of them through their work or industry shall be
purchase the same, but because he was not well- governed by the rules on co-ownership.
versed with legal documentation, he registered
the properties in the name of Juan S. Salas, In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties
married to Rubina C. Salas. acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint
Ruling of the RTC (Second Ruling) efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
The RTC found that Salas failed to prove his them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article,
allegation that Aguila transferred the Waived a party who did not participate in the acquisition
Properties to third persons. The RTC emphasized by the other party of any property shall be
that it cannot go beyond the TCTs, which state deemed to have contributed jointly in the
that Salas is the registered owner of the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts
Discovered Properties. The RTC further held that consisted in the care and maintenance of the
Salas and Rubina were at fault for failing to family and of the household.

16 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts occupation, she had no properties of her own
inter vivos of his or her share in the property from which she could derive income.
acquired during cohabitation and owned in
common, without the consent of the other, until In 1985, Nicolas suffered a stroke and cannot talk
after the termination of their cohabitation. anymore, cannot walk anymore and they have to
raise him up in order to walk. Natividad Retuya
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is knew of the physical condition of her father
in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in because they visited him at the hospital. From the
the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of time defendant Nicolas Retuya suffered a stroke
their common children. In case of default of or on January 27, 1985 and until the present, it is
waiver by any or all of the common children or defendant Procopio Villanueva, one of Nicolas
their descendants, each vacant share shall illegitimate children who has been receiving the
belong to the respective surviving descendants. income of these properties. Witness Natividad
In the absence of descendants, such share shall Retuya went to Procopio to negotiate because at
belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the this time their father Nicolas was already senile
forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the and has a childlike mind. She told defendant,
cohabitation. (Emphasis supplied) Procopio that their father was already
Under this property regime, property acquired incapacitated and they had to talk things over
during the marriage is prima facie presumed to and the latter replied that it was not yet the time
have been obtained through the couple's joint to talk about the matter.
efforts and governed by the rules on co-
ownership. 29 In the present case, Salas did not Plaintiff, then, complained to the Barangay
rebut this presumption. In a similar case where Captain for reconciliation/mediation but no
the ground for nullity of marriage was also settlement was reached, hence, the said official
psychological incapacity, we held that the issued a certification to file action. Written
properties acquired during the union of the demands were made by plaintiff, through her
parties, as found by both the RTC and the CA, counsel, to the defendants, including the
would be governed by co-ownership. 30 illegitimate family asking for settlement but no
Accordingly, the partition of the Discovered settlement was reached by the parties.
Properties as ordered by the RTC and the CA
should be sustained, but on the basis of co- Ruling of the RTC:
ownership and not on the regime of conjugal The trial court rendered its Decision on 16
partnership of gains. February 1994 in favor of Eusebia. The dispositive
portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM
the Decision dated 16 March 2012 and the 1. Declaring the properties listed in paragraph 2
Resolution dated 28 June 2012 of the Court of of the amended complaint as conjugal properties
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95322. of the spouses plaintiff Eusebia Retuya and the
defendant Nicolas Retuya;

Other Kinds of Cohabitation 2. Ordering the transfer of the sole administration

of conjugal properties of the spouses Eusebia
Retuya and Nicolas Retuya in accordance with
18. Villanueva et. al. vs. Court of Appeals,
Art. 124 of the Family Code to the plaintiff
et. al., G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004
Eusebia Napisa Retuya;
3. Ordering defendant Procopio Villanueva to
Plaintiff Eusebia Napisa Retuya, is the legal wife
account and turnover all proceeds or rentals or
of defendant Nicolas Retuya, having been
income of the conjugal properties from January
married to the latter on October 7, 1926. Out of
27, 1985 when he took over as administrator
the lawful wedlock, they begot five (5) children,
thereof and until he shall have ceased
namely, Natividad, Angela, Napoleon, Salome,
administering the same in accordance with the
and Roberta. Spouses Retuya resided at Tipolo,
judgment of this Court;
Mandaue City. During their marriage they
acquired real properties and all improvements
4. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to
situated in Mandaue City, and Consolacion, Cebu.
reconvey the parcel of land situated at Tipolo,
Mandaue City now in the name of defendant
Also, defendant, Nicolas Retuya, is co-owner of a
Pacita Villanueva under tax dec. No. 01450 and
parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he
transfer the same into the names of the conjugal
inherited from his parents Esteban Retuya and
partners Eusebia N. Retuya and Nicolas Retuya;
Balbina Solon as well as the purchasers of
hereditary shares of approximately eight (8)
5. Ordering the City Assessors Office of Mandaue
parcels of land in Mandaue City.
City to cancel tax declaration No. 01450 in the
name of Pacita Villanueva and direct the issuance
Some of these properties above-mentioned earn
of a new title and tax declaration in the names of
income from coconuts and the other lands/houses
Eusebia Napisa Retuya and Nicolas Retuya;
are leased.
6. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to
In 1945, defendant Nicolas Retuya no longer lived
reconvey that certain building of strong materials
with his legitimate family and cohabited with
located at Tipolo, Mandaue City under tax dec.
defendant, Pacita Villanueva, wherein defendant,
No. 01450 into the names of Eusebia Retuya and
Procopio Villanueva, is their illegitimate son.
Nicolas Retuya;
Nicolas, then, was the only person who received
the income of the above-mentioned properties.
7. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to
pay plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 by way of
Defendant, Pacita Villanueva, from the time she
attorneys fees and expenses of litigation in the
started living in concubinage with Nicolas, has no
sum of P5,000.00 plus the costs.

17 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
Ruling of the Court of Appeals: Socorro Torres and Esteban Abletes were married
Petitioners appealed the trial courts decision to on 9 June 1980. Both of them had children from
the Court of Appeals. Eusebia died on 23 prior marriages: Esteban had a daughter named
November 1996. Thereafter, Eusebias heirs Evangeline Abuda (Evangeline), and Socorro had
substituted her pursuant to the resolution of the a son named Edilberto, who was the father of
Court of Appeals dated 7 April 1997. The Court of Edilberto U. Ventura, Jr.,the petitioner in this case.
Appeals eventually upheld the Decision of the
trial court but deleted the award of attorneys Socorro had a prior subsisting marriage to Crispin
fees, ruling in this wise: Roxas (Crispin) when she married Esteban.
Socorro married Crispin on 18 April 1952. This
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 16, marriage was not annulled, and Crispin was alive
1994 is AFFIRMED with the modification that the at the time of Socorros marriage to Esteban.
award of attorneys fees of P50,000.00 is deleted. Estebans prior marriage, on the other hand, was
dissolved by virtue of his wifes death in 1960.
1. Whether or not properties acquired during the In 1968, Esteban acquired one-half of a lot
existence of the marriage of Nicolas Retuya and situated in 2492 State Alley, Bonifacio Street,
Eusebia Retuya are conjugal. Vitas, Tondo, Manila, while Evangeline bought the
other half for her father in 1970. When the title
Ruling: to the property (TCT No. 141782) was released in
Petitioners claim that the subject properties are 1980, it was registered in the name of Esteban
exclusive properties of Nicolas except for Lot No. Abletes. Evangeline also alleged that she and
152, which they claim is Pacitas exclusive her father operated small business
property. This issue is easily resolved. The Family establishments at 903 and 905 Delpan St,. Tondo,
Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern Manila. When Esteban died, the Vitas and Delpan
the property relations between Nicolas and properties was sold to Evangeline and her
Eusebia even if they were married before the husband. Esteban died in 1997, while Socorro
effectivity of Family Code. Article 105 of the died in 1999. In 2000, Leonora, Edilbertos
Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family mother discovered the sale of the properties to
Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships Evangeline, which she then relayed to Edilberto.
established before the Family Code without The latter, represented by Leonora filed a petition
prejudice to vested rights already acquired under for annulment of deeds of sale before the RTC of
the Civil Code or other laws. Thus, under the Manila, alleging that the sales were fraudulent as
Family Code, if the properties are acquired during Estebans signature in the deeds were forged.
the marriage, the presumption is that they are Evangeline countered that because of the prior
conjugal. The burden of proof is on the party marriage by Socorro to Crispin, her marriage to
claiming that they are not conjugal. This is Esteban was null and void, hence, Socorro and
counter-balanced by the requirement that the her heirs may not claim any right or interest over
properties must first be proven to have been the properties she and her father acquired.
acquired during the marriage before they are
presumed conjugal. Issue:
Whether or not Esteban and Socorro were co-
Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that woners of the Delpan and Vitas properties, thus
the subject properties were in fact acquired entitling Edilberto as heir of Socorro to a share of
during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia. The the properties.
tax declarations covering the subject properties,
along with the unrebutted testimony of Eusebias
witnesses, establish this fact. The Ruling of the RTC-Manila
The RTC ruled in favour of Evangeline and
Petitioners further argue that since Nicolas and Paulino. Since the marriage of Socorro and
Pacita were already cohabiting when Lot No. 152 Esteban were void, the applicable rule was Article
was acquired, the lot cannot be deemed conjugal 831 of the Civil Code, which was the governing
property of Nicolas and Eusebia. Petitioners keep law at the time the two were married. It also
belaboring this point in their petition and applied Ninal vs. Badayog2 ratiocinating that no
memorandum. prior judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is
needed in order to establish the nullity of the
The cohabitation of a spouse with another marriage. The Vitas and Delpan properties were
person, even for a long period, does not sever the not conjugal, and governed by Articles 1443 and
tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Otherwise, 4854 of the Civil Code. Applying the foregoing
the law would be giving a stamp of approval to an provisions, the RTC determined that they were
act that is both illegal and immoral. What properties of Esteban, and since Socorro did not
petitioners fail to grasp is that Nicolas and contribute any funds to the acquisition of the
Pacitas cohabitation cannot work to the properties, she was never a co-owner thereof,
detriment of Eusebia, the legal spouse. The and she or her heirs cannot claim any right over
marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia continued to the properties
exist regardless of the fact that Nicolas was
already living with Pacita. Hence, all property According to the RTC-Manila, the Vitas and Delpan
acquired from 7 October 1926, the date of Nicolas properties are not conjugal, and are governed by
and Eusebias marriage, until 23 November 1996, Articles 144 and 485 of the Civil Code, to wit:
the date of Eusebias death, are still presumed Art. 144. When a man and a woman live together
conjugal. as husband and wife, but they are not married, or
their marriage is void from the beginning, the
19. Edilberto U. Ventura, Jr. vs. Spouses property acquired by either or both of them
Paulino & Evangeline Abuda, G.R. No. through their work or industry or their wages and
202932, October 23, 2013 salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-
The Facts Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the
benefits as well as in the charges, shall be
18 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
proportional to their respective interests. Any Evangeline, such payment was made on behalf of
stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be her father. Article 1238 of the Civil Code provides:
void. Art. 1238. Payment made by a third person who
does not intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is
Aggrieved, Edilberto filed an appeal before the deemed to be a donation, which requires the
CA. debtor's consent. But the payment is in any case
valid as to the creditor who has accepted it.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the RTC decision, but clarified Thus, it is clear that Evangeline paid on behalf of
that the applicable law is Article 1485 of the her father, and the parties intended that the
Family Code, and applied the ruling in Saguid vs Delpan property would be owned by and
CA6. It held that the provisions apply even if registered under the name of Esteban.
cohabitation or acquisition of the property
occurred prior to the enactment of the Family During trial, the Abuda spouses presented
Code. In this case, Edilberto failed to provide receipts evidencing payments of the
evidence that Socorro contributed to the amortizations for the Delpan property. On the
acquisition of the properties. other hand, Edilberto failed to show any evidence
showing Socorro's alleged monetary
Article 148 of the Family Code states that in contributions. As correctly pointed out by the CA:
unions between a man and a woman who are [s]ettled is the rule that in civil cases x x x the
incapacitated to marry each other: burden of proof rests upon the party who, as
x x x only the properties acquired by both of the determined by the pleadings or the nature of the
parties through their actual joint contribution of case, asserts the affirmative of an issue. x x x.
money, property, or industry shall be owned by Here it is Appellant who is duty bound to prove
them in common in proportion to their respective the allegations in the complaint which
contributions. In the absence of proof to the undoubtedly, he miserably failed to do so.
contrary, their contributions and corresponding
shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule 20. Banguis-Tambuyat vs. Balcom-Tambuyat,
and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015
money and evidences of credit.
Edilberto elevated the case to the Supreme Court Adriano Tambuyat and respondent Wenifreda
via a petition for review on certiorari. Balcom Tambuyat were married on September
16, 1965.
The Ruling of this Court During their marriage, Adriano acquired several
The Supreme Court denied the petition, the real properties, including a 700 sq. m. parcel of
decision in the CA is affirmed. land located at Brgy. Muzon, San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan, which was bought on November 17,
This is a reiteration of Article 148 of the Family 1991. The Deed of Sale was signed by Adriano
Code, which the CA applied in the assailed alone as vendee.
decision: One of the signing witnesses was petitioner
Art 148. In cases of cohabitation [wherein the Rosario Banguis Tambuyat, who signed therein
parties are incapacitated to marry each other], as Rosario Tambuyat. All this time petitioner
only the properties acquired by both of the Banguis remained married to Eduardo Nolasco.
parties through their actual joint contribution of When TCT covering the subject property was
money, property, or industry shall be owned by issued, it was made under the name of Adriano
them in common in proportion to their respective M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. Banguis.
contributions. In the absence of proof to the When Adriano died intestate on June 7, 1998,
contrary, their contributions and corresponding Wenifreda filed a Petition for Cancellation of the
shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule subject TCT. She alleged that she was the
and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of surviving spouse of Adriano. That the TCT was
money and evidences of credit. erroneously registered and made in the name of
Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, Banguis. That per annexed marriage contract,
his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue Banguis was still married to Nolasco. Wenifreda
to the absolute community or conjugal prayed that the TCT be cancelled. That a new
partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the certificate of title be made out in Adrianos name,
party who acted in bad faith is not validly married with her as the spouse indicated, and that
to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in Banguis be ordered to surrender her copy of TCT.
the manner provided in the last paragraph of the On her defense, Banguis claimed that she and
preceding Article. Adriano were married on Sept. 2, 1988, and
thereafter lived together as married couple; that
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise their union produced a son; and that the trial
apply even if both parties are in bad faith. court has no jurisdiction over the petition for
cancellation, which is merely a summary
Applying the foregoing provision, the Vitas and proceeding considering that a thorough
Delpan properties can be considered common determination will have to be made as to whether
property if: (1) these were acquired during the the property is conjugal or exclusive property,
cohabitation of Esteban and Socorro; and (2) and since she and Adriano have a child whose
there is evidence that the properties were rights will be adversely affected by any judgment
acquired through the parties actual joint in the case.
contribution of money, property, or industry. The RTC decided in favor of Wenifreda and
directed the RD of Meycauayan to cancel the TCT
Both the RTC-Manila and the CA found that the of Banguis and in lieu thereof to issue a new
Delpan property was acquired prior to the certificate of title in the name of Adriano M.
marriage of Esteban and Socorro.[29] Tambuyat married to Wenifreda Winnie Balcom
Furthermore, even if payment of the purchase Tambuyat. RTC justified its decision by using Sec.
price of the Delpan property was made by 108 of PD 1529 which states: court authorization
19 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S
is required for any alteration or amendment of a two instances because the RD of Bulacan
certificate of title when any error, omission or committed and error in issuing the disputed TCT,
mistake was made in entering a certificate or any in the name of Adriano M. Tambuyat married to
memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate Rosario E. Banguis when, in truth and in fact,
certificate, or when there is reasonable ground for respondent Wenifreda and not Banguis is
the amendment or alteration of the title. Adrianos lawful spouse. As correctly ruled by the
The CA sustained the trial courts decision, appellate court, the preponderance of evidence
noting that Banguis name was included in the points to the fact that Wenifreda is the legitimate
TCT by error or mistake. It held that the evidence spouse of Adriano. Thus, it cannot be said that
adduced proved that Wenifreda and not Banguis Adriano and Banguis were husband and wife to
is the lawful wife of Adriano that there is a valid each other it cannot even be said that they have
and subsisting marriage between Nolasco and a common law relationship at all.
Banguis, and the latter admitted to such fact Philippine Law does not recognize common law
during the course of the proceedings in the trial marriages. A man and woman not legally married
court and that Banguiss opposition to who cohabit for many years as husband and wife,
Wenifredas petition for cancellation of TCT is not who represent themselves to the public as
real and genuine as to place the latters title to husband and wife, and who are reputed to be
the subject property in doubt. husband and wife in the community where they
live may be considered legally married in
Issue: Whether the cancellation of the TCT filed common law jurisdictions but not in the
by Wenifreda be granted by the court. Philippines. While it is true that our laws do not
just brush aside the fact that such relationships
Held: YES are present in our society, and that they produce
Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding a community of properties and interests which is
for the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a governed by law, authority exists in case law to
certificate of title may be resorted to in seven the effect that such form of co ownership requires
instances, included are (1) when any error, that the man and woman living together must not
omission or mistake was made in entering a in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage.
certificate or any memorandum thereon or on that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless
any duplicate certificate and (2) when there is expressly providing to the contrary as in Article
reasonable ground for the amendment or 144, when referring to a spouse contemplate a
alteration of title. The present case falls under the lawfully wedded spouse.

20 | J R C M E N D O Z A L A W A R C H I V E S