YAPTINCHAY v. TORRES TOPIC: Common-law/live-in Marriages FACTS: Isidro Y. Yaptinchay died in Hong Kong without a will.

. He left properties in HK and Manila, including a ungalow house in !orth "or es #ar$. #etitioner %eresita C. Yaptinchay &live-in partner' sought in the Court of "irst Instance of (i)al her appointment as administratri* of the estate of the deceased. %eresita alleged that Isidro lived with her +continuously, openly, and pu licly as hus and and wife for ,- years.. %he court issued an order appointing her as special administratri* of the estate. Isidro/s legitimate wife, 0osefina Yaptinchay, opposed %eresita/s petition. 1he says that %eresita has no right to e the administratri* since she is not an heir of the decedent. 0osefina counter-petitioned that 2irginia Yaptinchay &daughter of Isidro' e appointed as special administratri* and 0osefina, the surviving spouse, e the regular administratri*. Counter-petition was granted. %eresita made a second move, filing an action for replevin and for li3uidation of the partnership formed during her coha itation with Isidro. 0udge %orres issued an order temporarily restraining respondents from disposing of the properties and the "or es #ar$ house. 4fterwards, the court also issued a writ of preliminary in5unction re3uiring %eresita to deliver the possession of the "or es #ar$ house to special administratri* 2irginia and refrain from distur ing or interfering with her possession. ISSUE:

6o! the respondent 5udge committed grave a use of discretion in directing petitioner %eresita to deliver the "or es #ar$ property to special administratri* 2irginia.

HOLDING: !7. %eresita/s claim of ownership ased on 4rticle ,88 of the !CC9 +6hen a man and a woman live together as hus and and wife, ut they are not married, or their marriage is void from the eginning, the property ac3uired y either or oth of them through their wor$ shall e governed y the rules on co-ownership.. However, before coowner !"# co$%& be 'ccr$e&, (!ere 're con&"("on : one $c! con&"("on " (!'( (!ere )$ ( be ' CLEAR SHO*ING (!'( Tere "(' !'&, &$r"n+ co!'b"('("on, re'%%, con(r"b$(e& (o (!e 'c-$" "("on of (!e #ro#er(, "nvo%ve&. #roperties &including "or es #ar$ home' elonging not only to the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay ut also to the con5ugal partnership of said deceased and his legitimate wife, 0osefina, were rought under the 5urisdiction of the court to e placed under administration. 1pecial adminstratri* 2irginia too$ +actual or physical possession. of the "or es #ar$ house + y virtue of her appointment and under her authority as special adminstratri*.. %eresita claims that the construction of the "or es #ar$ property was underta$en 5ointly y %eresita and Isidro, with %eresita even contri uting her own e*clusive funds. However, private respondents &0osefina and 2irginia, etc.' maintain that the construction of the property was underta$en without %eresita/s intervention and that Isidro paid with his own personal funds for all e*penses. %eresita presented proof of loans. However, ev"&ence " w'n("n+ (!'( (!e e %o'n were $ e& for (!e con (r$c("on of (!e Forbe P'r. !o$ e. %he unsupported assertion that the house is %eresita/s e*clusive property may not e permitted to override the prima face presumption that the house, having een constructed on the lot of Isidro &or of the con5ugal partnership', during the e*istence of marriage with 0osefina, is part of the estate that should e under the control of the special administratri*.