PEÑA, TABITHA ERLINDA MA. PAS A.

CASE DIGEST

DIANCIN vs. CA and DECENA

G.R. No. 119991. November 20, 2000.
Pardo, J.

FACTS:

1. Tiburcio Estampador and Matilde Gulmatico were married in Iloilo in 1933--They had
six children, namely: Norma, Vevencia, Raul, Aurora, Luz and Fe (hereinafter Norma et
al.)
2. In 1940, Matilde was granted fishpond permit over an area of 10.47 hectares. (The permit
was last renewed in 1972.)
3. Almost a year after Tiburcio’s death in 1967, Matilde sold the leasehold right on the
fishpond to Olympia Dancin for P31,000.
4. Twenty years later, Norma et al. filed with the trial court a complaint against Olimpia and
Matilde, seeking for declaration of nullity and recovery of one-half (1/2) conjugal share
in said leasehold right.
5. In response, Olimpia averred that the fishpond was government-owned and the permit
was exclusively granted to Matilde.
6. Consequently, the trial court ruled in favor of Norma et al., declaring null and void the
Deed of Sale concerning the one-half (1/2) conjugal share of Tiburcio, and ordered
Olimpia to reconvey the same to the former.
7. Olimpia, then, appealed the trial court’s decision before the Court of Appeals, contending
that the permit granted to Matilde was conjugal property.
8. In its decision, the Court of Appeals stated that, similar to the trial court’s decision, the
fishpond leasehold right is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership as it was
acquired during the subsistence of the marriage of Matilde and Tiburcio—However, with
the death of Tiburcio, the conjugal partnership of gains was dissolved and thus only one-
half (1/2) of said right belonged to Matilde as her share in the conjugal partnership and
another one-seventh (1/7) of the one-half (1/2) remainder as her share in the estate of
Tiburcio; hence, Matilde had no right to dispose of the entire fishpond leasehold right.

ISSUE:

W/N the fishpond leasehold right is part of the conjugal partnership of gains

RULING:

YES. As a general rule, all properly acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose name
the same is registered, during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of
gains, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. The fishpond
leasehold right is not paraphernal having been acquired during the coverture of the marriage
between Matilde
and Tiburcio. The fact that the grant was solely in the name of Matilde did not make the property
paraphernal property. What was material was the time the fishpond leasehold right was acquired
by Matilde which was during the lawful existence of her marriage to Tiburcio.

*** The presumption stands with respect to all properties acquired during marriage regardless in
whose name the property is registered. (Gesmundo, p. 297)