Lesaca v. Lesaca GR.

No Date Nature: This is a case certified to the SC by the CA for the reason that, in its opinion and as admitted by the parties, they involve only questions of la . Facts: !aldomaro ". #esaca died and as survived by his second ife, "uana $eli%, & minor children by the latter, & children by his first marria'e, and ( ac)no led'ed natural children by a third oman. *n his ill he named "uana $. #esaca and Consuelo $. #esaca, his children by his first marria'e, co+e%ecutrices. The deceased and his second ife had been livin'+in since ,-&. and on ,-(/, before he married "uana, he bou'ht ( parcels of land from Ramon Garcia for &,0//. 1hen he died on ,-.2, ho ever, 3ust after a year he finally ed "uana, his children from his first ife sold the ( parcels of land bac) to Ramon Garcia for the same price of &,0// php. No , claimin' that this sum as con3u'al property, "uana, the second ife petitioned the court to order the co+ e%ecutrices to 'ive her one+half thereof, hich the RTC declared in her favor thus, the appeal to the CA, and, subsequently, this case. Issue: 14N money received after marria'e, as purchase price of land sold a retrovendendo before such marria'e to one of the consorts, constitutes con3u'al property5 Held & Rationale No. *n 6arata vs. Dionio, the Court held that althou'h there is no technical marital partnership bet een persons livin' maritally ithout bein' la fully married, there is, nevertheless, an informal civil partnership that ould entitle the parties to an equal interest in property acquired by their 3oint efforts. 7o ever, in the present case, there is no sho in' that the sum paid to Garcia as earned by the 3oint efforts of the deceased and his ido . *n the absence of such proof the sum must be deemed to have been the property of the deceased to hom the land for hich it as 'iven in payment as sold by Garcia. *t follo s that the order belo ad3ud'in' one+ half of the sum in question to the ido is erroneous.