Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-57757
GANCAYCO, J.:
Does the presumption of conjugality of properties acquired by the
spouses during coverture provided for in Article 160 of the Civil
Code apply to property covered by a Torrens certificate of title in
the name of the widow? This is the issue posed in this petition to
review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. 60903 which is an action for reconveyance and damages.
*
On November 28, 1952, Donata Montemayor, through her son,
Salvador M. Vitug, mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB)
several parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 2289 Pampanga to guarantee the loan granted by the PNB
to Salvador Jaramilla and Pedro Bacani in the amount of
P40,900.00 which was duly registered in the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Pampanga. 1
On December 1, 1963, Donata Montemayor also mortgaged in
favor of PNB certain properties covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and
2888-Pampanga to guarantee the payment of the loan account of
her son Salvador Vitug in the amount of P35,200.00, which
mortgage was duly registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga. 2
The above-mentioned Transfer Certificates of Titles covering said
properties were all in the name of Donata Montemayor, of legal
age, Filipino, widow and a resident of Lubao, Pampanga at the time
they were mortgaged to PNB 3 and were free from all hens and
encumbrances. 4
Salvador Vitug failed to pay his account so the bank foreclosed the
mortgaged properties covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and 2888. They
were sold at public auction on May 20, 1968 in which the PNB was
the highest bidder. The titles thereto were thereafter consolidated
in the name of PNB.
Likewise, Salvador Jaramilla and Pedro Bacani failed to settle their
accounts with the PNB so the latter foreclosed the properties
covered by TCT No. 2889 which were sold at public auction and
likewise PNB was the buyer thereof. On August 30, 1968, a
certificate of sale was issued by the Register of Deeds covering
said properties in favor of the PNB. When the title of the PNB was
consolidated a new title was issued in its name. 5
On September 2, 1969, the PNB sold the properties covered by TCT
Nos. 2887 and 2888 Pampanga to Jesus M. Vitug, Anunciacion V.
de Guzman, Prudencia V. Fajardo, Salvador Vitug and Aurora V.
Gutierrez in those names the corresponding titles were issued. 6
During the lifetime of Clodualdo Vitug he married two times. His
first wife was Gervacia Flores with whom he had 3 children,
namely, Victor, Lucina and Julio all surnamed Vitug. Victor now
dead is survived by his 5 children: Leonardo, Juan, Candida
Francisco and Donaciano, an surnamed Vitug. Juan Vitug is also
dead and is survived by his only daughter Florencia Vitug.
The second wife of Clodualdo Vitug was Donata Montemayor with
whom he had 8 children, namely, Pragmacio, Maximo, Jesus,
Salvador, Prudencio and Anunciacion, all surnamed Vitug, the late
Enrique Vitug represented by his wife Natalia Laquian, and the late
Francisco Vitug who is survived by 11 children, namely, Antonio,
Francisco, Aurora, Pedro, Honorio, Corazon, Anselmo, Benigno,
Eligio Jesus and Luz.
Clodualdo Vitug died intestate on May 20, 1929 so his estate was
settled and distributed in Special Proceeding No. 422 in the Court
of First Instance of Pampanga wherein Donata Montemayor was the
Administratrix. 7
Meanwhile, on May 12,1958, Donata Montemayor executed a
contract of lease of Lot No. 24, which is covered by TCT No. 2887-R
At any rate, although actions for recovery of real property and for
partition are real actions, however, they are actions in personam
that bind only the particular individuals who are parties thereto. 19
The PNB not being a party in said cases is not bound by the said
decisions. Nor does it appear that the PNB was aware of the said
decisions when it extended the above describe mortgage loans.
Indeed, if the PNB knew of the conjugal nature of said properties it
would not have approved the mortgage applications covering said
properties of Donata Montemayor without requiring the consent of
all the other heirs or co-owners thereof. Moreover, when said
properties were sold at public auction, the PNB was a purchaser for
value in good faith. So its right thereto is beyond question. 20
Pragmacio and Maximo Vitug are now estopped from questioning
the title of Donata Montemayor to the said properties. They never
raised the conjugal nature of the property nor took issue as to the
ownership of their mother, Donata Montemayor, over the same.
Indeed private respondents were among the defendants in said two
cases wherein in their answers to the complaint they asserted that
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
December 10, 2012
SO ORDERED.
ABAD, J.:
SR.
and
JOSE
JUANITE,
JR.,
Claiming that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
challenged orders, Efren filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals (CA). On January 29, 2004 the CA dismissed the
petition for failure to sufficiently show that the RTC gravely abused
its discretion in issuing its assailed orders.12 It also denied Efrens
motion for reconsideration,13 prompting him to file the present
petition for review on certiorari.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred
in holding that the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and
Melecia can be levied and executed upon for the satisfaction of
Melecias civil liability in the murder case.
Ruling of the Court
To determine whether the obligation of the wife arising from her
criminal liability is chargeable against the properties of the
marriage, the Court has first to identify the spouses property
relations.
Efren claims that his marriage with Melecia falls under the regime
of conjugal partnership of gains, given that they were married prior
to the enactment of the Family Code and that they did not execute
any prenuptial agreement.14 Although the heirs of the deceased
victims do not dispute that it was the Civil Code, not the Family
Code, which governed the marriage, they insist that it was the
system of absolute community of property that applied to Efren
and Melecia. The reasoning goes:
Admittedly, the spouses were married before the effectivity of the
Family Code. But that fact does not prevent the application of [A]rt.
94, last paragraph, of the Family Code because their property
regime is precisely governed by the law on absolute community.
This finds support in Art. 256 of the Family Code which states:
"This code shall have retroactive effect in so far as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with
the Civil Code or other laws."
None of the spouses is dead. Therefore, no vested rights have been
acquired by each over the properties of the community. Hence, the
defendant. The motion for dismissal was filed before the hearing
but the trial court deferred action upon it until after submission of
evidence by the parties. Said parties entered into a stipulation of
facts after which they declined to submit any other evidence
except Exhibit "A", the supposed deed of donation propter nuptias,
the translation of which, for purposes of reference, is reproduced
below:
That, I Melchor Solomon, single, Filipino, of legal age, native of the
municipality of Sinait, province of Ilocos Sur and residing at present
in Sinait, having decided to get married with the consent of my
parents, brothers, or sisters and relatives, have announced and
manifested my determination and desire to Mr. Estanislao Serrano
to whose family the flower I intend to win belongs, namely Miss
Alejandria Feliciano single, born in Hawaii but is actually residing in
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur.
This ardent desire favored by good luck and accepted by the noble
lady the one concerned, is to be realized and complied with under
agreement or stipulation which affirms, promotes and vivifies the
union. This agreement donating all my exclusive properties in order
that we shall have a basic capital for our conjugal life and in order
that there will be ready maintenance and support of offsprings has
come out voluntarily and expontaneously from me, I the very one
concerned.
These which I am donating my exclusive properties because I have
honestly acquired the same with the sweat of my brows and I
donate them gladly, to wit . . .;
The referred to properties are donated in accordance with the
existing laws of the Philippines and our children out of the wedlock
will be the ones to inherit same inherit same with equal shares. But
if God will not bless our union with any child one half of all my
properties including the properties acquired our conjugal union will
be given the (to) my brothers or sisters or their heirs if I, the
husband will die before my wife and if my beloved wife will die
before me, one half of all my properties and those acquired by us
will be given to those who have reared my wife in token of my love
to her. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
Alejandria Feliciano, whose father went to Hawaii to seek his
fortune and who until now resides there, had been left to her
father's friend named Estanislao Serrano who took care of and
raised her from the age 12 until she reached womanhood. On June
21, 1948, defendant Melchor Solomon married Alejandria. On the
same day of the marriage but before the marriage ceremony he
executed the alleged Deed of Donation, Exhibit "A" above
reproduced. Less than nine months after marriage, or rather on
March 2, 1949, Alejandria died without issue. Several months
thereafter Estanislao Serrano commenced the present action to
enforce and implement the terms of the alleged donation
particularly that portion thereof to the effect that if Alejandria died
before her husband Melchor and left no children, then one half of
Melchor's properties and those acquired by him and his wife would
be given to those persons who had raised and taken care of her
namely, Estanislao Serrano.
Acting upon the motion for dismissal the trial court found that the
donation could not be regarded as a donation propter nuptias for
the reason that though it was executed before the marriage, it was
not made in consideration of the marriage and, what is more
important, that the donation was not made to one or both of the
(marriage) contracting parties, but to a third person.
After a careful study of the case, we fully agree with the trial court.
Article 1327 of the Old Civil Code reads:
Art. 1327. Donations by reasons of marriage are those bestowed
before its celebration in consideration of the same, upon one or
both of the spouses.
This article was reproduced in the Civil Code under Article 126.
Whether we apply Article 1327 for the reason that the document
Exhibit "A" was executed in 1948 before the promulgation of the
New Civil Code in 1950 or whether we apply Article 126 of the New
Civil Code the result would be the same.
Was the donation made in considerations of the marriage between
Melchor and Alejandria or was it made consideration of the death
of either of them in the absence of any children? True, the Deed of
Donation was executed on the occasion when they married. But,
the marriage in itself was not the only consideration or condition
under which terms of the donation would be carried out. The
marriage would have to be childless and one of the spouses would
have to die before the other before the donation would operate.
So, strictly, speaking, the donation may not be regarded as one
made in consideration of the marriage.
NACHURA, J.:
Claiming that the Agreement was null and void since it was entered
into by Joselyn without his (Benjamins) consent, Benjamin
instituted an action for Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of Lease
with Damages11 against Joselyn and the petitioner. Benjamin
claimed that his funds were used in the acquisition and
improvement of the Boracay property, and coupled with the fact
that he was Joselyns husband, any transaction involving said
property required his consent.
No Answer was filed, hence, the RTC declared Joselyn and the
petitioner in defeault. On March 14, 1994, the RTC rendered
judgment by default declaring the Agreement null and void.12 The
decision was, however, set aside by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
34054.13 The CA also ordered the RTC to allow the petitioner to file
his Answer, and to conduct further proceedings.
However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out, and Joselyn ran
away with Kim Philippsen. On June 8, 1992, Joselyn executed a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Benjamin, authorizing
the latter to maintain, sell, lease, and sub-lease and otherwise
enter into contract with third parties with respect to their Boracay
property.9
On July 20, 1992, Joselyn as lessor and petitioner Philip Matthews
as lessee, entered into an Agreement of Lease10 (Agreement)
involving the Boracay property for a period of 25 years, with an
annual rental of P12,000.00. The agreement was signed by the
parties and executed before a Notary Public. Petitioner thereafter
took possession of the property and renamed the resort as Music
Garden Resort.1avvphi1
THE CASE OF SPOUSES PELAYO VS. MELKI PEREZ, G.R. NO. 141323,
JUNE 8, 2005.
SO ORDERED.15
Joselyn could not enter into a valid contract involving the subject
property without his consent.
The trial and appellate courts both focused on the property
relations of petitioner and respondent in light of the Civil Code and
Family Code provisions. They, however, failed to observe the
applicable constitutional principles, which, in fact, are the more
decisive.
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:18
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands
shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain.1avvphi1
Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified
from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence, by virtue of the
aforecited constitutional provision, they are also disqualified from
acquiring private lands.19 The primary purpose of this
constitutional provision is the conservation of the national
patrimony.20 Our fundamental law cannot be any clearer. The right
to acquire lands of the public domain is reserved only to Filipino
citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of
which is owned by Filipinos.21
In Krivenko v. Register of Deeds,22 cited in Muller v. Muller,23 we
had the occasion to explain the constitutional prohibition:
Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural
resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not
be alienated," and with respect to public agricultural lands, their
alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional
purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino
citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves
who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is
partly to prevent this result that Section 5 is included in Article XIII,
and it reads as follows:
"Section 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
P
roperty purchased by spouses during the existence of their
marriage is presumed to be conjugal in nature. This presumption
stands, absent any clear, categorical, and convincing evidence that
the property is paraphernal. Conjugal property cannot be held
liable for the personal obligation contracted by one spouse, unless
some advantage or benefit is shown to have accrued to the
conjugal partnership.
The Case
Before the Court is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, challenging the November 22, 2002 Decision[2] and
the September 17, 2003 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-GR CV No. 60939. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:
FIRST DIVISION
The Facts
In its Decision[6] dated March 25, 1998, the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 4, held that the subject parcel of land
was the paraphernal property of the late Muriel Pucay Yamane -spouse of respondent -- and was not their conjugal property. The
appearance of his name on the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
was deemed to be merely descriptive of the civil status of the
registered owner, his late wife. Hence, finding that he had no legal
standing to question the auction sale or to pray for its annulment
or cancellation, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of merit.
Upon receipt of the RTC Decision on April 8, 1998, respondent filed
a Motion,[7] in which he prayed that he be allowed to file his
In the main, they posit two issues. They raise, first, the procedural
question of whether the CA erred in giving due course to
respondents lapsed appeal; and, second, the substantive issue of
whether the subject property is conjugal or paraphernal.
Procedural Issue:
Whether Respondents Appeal
Should Be Given Due Course
Issues
Petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration:
when her counsel of record was already dead. The new counsel
could only file the appeal four days after the prescribed
reglementary period was over. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals, the
Court allowed the perfection of an appeal by the Republic despite
the delay of six days to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice since
the Republic stood to lose hundreds of hectares of land already
titled in its name and had since then been devoted for public
purposes. In Olacao vs. National Labor Relations Commission, a
tardy appeal was accepted considering that the subject matter in
issue had theretofore been judicially settled with finality in another
case, and a dismissal of the appeal would have had the effect of
the appellant being ordered twice to make the same reparation to
the appellee.[19]
Substantive Issue:
Paraphernal or Conjugal?
Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless
it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the
wife.[21] As a conditio sine qua non for the operation of this article
in favor of the conjugal partnership,[22] the party who invokes the
presumption must first prove that the property was acquired during
the marriage.[23]
In other words, the presumption in favor of conjugality does not
operate if there is no showing of when the property alleged to be
conjugal was acquired.[24] Moreover, the presumption may be
rebutted only with strong, clear, categorical and convincing
evidence.[25] There must be strict proof of the exclusive ownership
of one of the spouses,[26] and the burden of proof rests upon the
party asserting it.[27]
The CA committed no error in declaring that the parcel of land
belonged to the conjugal partnership of Spouses Muriel and
Leonardo Yamane. They acquired it from Eugene Pucay on February
27, 1967,[28] or specifically during the marriage.[29] We then
follow the rule that proof of the acquisition of the subject property
during a marriage suffices to render the statutory presumption
operative. It is clear enough that the presently disputed piece of
land pertains to the conjugal partnership.
Petitioners concede that the property was acquired during the
subsistence of the marriage of Muriel to respondent.[30]
Nonetheless, they insist that it belonged exclusively to her for the
following reasons:
First. Respondent never denied nor opposed her claim in Civil Case
No. 505-R, which she had filed during her lifetime; or in AG-GR Sp.
No. 01616 (entitled Muriel Pucay Yamane v. Josephine Go), that the
disputed parcel of land was her exclusive paraphernal property.
They allege that his failure to file a denial or opposition in those
cases is tantamount to a judicial admission that militates against
his belated claim.
Second. The Deed of Absolute Sale of the property is in the sole
name of Muriel. Petitioners posit that, had the spouses jointly
purchased this piece of land, the document should have indicated
this fact or carried the name of respondent as buyer.
Non-Redemption
After the Auction Sale
SO ORDERED.
THIRD DIVISION
versus -
First Issue:
Paraphernal or Conjugal?
As a general rule, all property acquired during the marriage,
whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or
registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be
conjugal unless the contrary is proved.[34]
xxxx
The provisions of this Chapter [on the Conjugal Partnership of
Gains] shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already
established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code,
without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance
with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256.
EN BANC
Six years later in 1988, Tarciano offered to sell the lot to petitioners
Manuel and Leticia Fuentes (the Fuentes spouses). They arranged
to meet at the office of Atty. Romulo D. Plagata whom they asked
to prepare the documents of sale. They later signed an agreement
to sell that Atty. Plagata prepared[2] dated April 29, 1988, which
agreement expressly stated that it was to take effect in six months.
The agreement required the Fuentes spouses to pay Tarciano a
down payment of P60,000.00 for the transfer of the lots title to
him. And, within six months, Tarciano was to clear the lot of
structures and occupants and secure the consent of his estranged
wife, Rosario Gabriel Roca (Rosario), to the sale. Upon Tarcianos
compliance with these conditions, the Fuentes spouses were to
take possession of the lot and pay him an additional P140,000.00
or P160,000.00, depending on whether or not he succeeded in
demolishing the house standing on it. If Tarciano was unable to
comply with these conditions, the Fuentes spouses would become
owners of the lot without any further formality and payment.
The parties left their signed agreement with Atty. Plagata who then
worked on the other requirements of the sale. According to the
lawyer, he went to see Rosario in one of his trips to Manila and had
her sign an affidavit of consent.[3] As soon as Tarciano met the
other conditions, Atty. Plagata notarized Rosarios affidavit in
Zamboanga City. On January 11, 1989 Tarciano executed a deed of
absolute sale[4] in favor of the Fuentes spouses. They then paid
him the additional P140,000.00 mentioned in their agreement. A
new title was issued in the name of the spouses[5] who
immediately constructed a building on the lot. On January 28, 1990
Tarciano passed away, followed by his wife Rosario who died nine
months afterwards.
Eight years later in 1997, the children of Tarciano and Rosario,
namely, respondents Conrado G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, and
Rose Marie R. Cristobal, together with Tarcianos sister, Pilar R.
Malcampo, represented by her son, John Paul M. Trinidad
(collectively, the Rocas), filed an action for annulment of sale and
reconveyance of the land against the Fuentes spouses before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City in Civil Case 4707.
The Rocas claimed that the sale to the spouses was void since
Tarcianos wife, Rosario, did not give her consent to it. Her signature
on the affidavit of consent had been forged. They thus prayed that
Third. The Fuentes spouses point out that it was to Rosario, whose
consent was not obtained, that the law gave the right to bring an
action to declare void her husbands sale of conjugal land. But here,
Rosario died in 1990, the year after the sale. Does this mean that
the right to have the sale declared void is forever lost?
The answer is no. As stated above, that sale was void from the
beginning. Consequently, the land remained the property of
Tarciano and Rosario despite that sale. When the two died, they
passed on the ownership of the property to their heirs, namely, the
Rocas.[23] As lawful owners, the Rocas had the right, under Article
429 of the Civil Code, to exclude any person from its enjoyment
and disposal.
In fairness to the Fuentes spouses, however, they should be
entitled, among other things, to recover from Tarcianos heirs, the
Rocas, the P200,000.00 that they paid him, with legal interest until
fully paid, chargeable against his estate.
Further, the Fuentes spouses appear to have acted in good faith in
entering the land and building improvements on it. Atty. Plagata,
whom the parties mutually entrusted with closing and
documenting the transaction, represented that he got Rosarios
signature on the affidavit of consent. The Fuentes spouses had no
reason to believe that the lawyer had violated his commission and
his oath. They had no way of knowing that Rosario did not come to
Zamboanga to give her consent. There is no evidence that they
had a premonition that the requirement of consent presented some
difficulty. Indeed, they willingly made a 30 percent down payment
on the selling price months earlier on the assurance that it was
forthcoming.
Further, the notarized document appears to have comforted the
Fuentes spouses that everything was already in order when
Tarciano executed a deed of absolute sale in their favor on January
11, 1989. In fact, they paid the balance due him. And, acting on
the documents submitted to it, the Register of Deeds of
Zamboanga City issued a new title in the names of the Fuentes
spouses. It was only after all these had passed that the spouses
entered the property and built on it. He is deemed a possessor in
good faith, said Article 526 of the Civil Code, who is not aware that
there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it.
spouses Manuel and Leticia Fuentes the P200,000.00 that the latter
paid Tarciano T. Roca, with legal interest from January 11, 1989
until fully paid, chargeable against his estate;
4. Respondents Gonzalo G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R.
Cristobal, and Pilar Malcampo are further ORDERED, at their option,
to indemnify petitioner spouses Manuel and Leticia Fuentes with
their expenses for introducing useful improvements on the subject
land or pay the increase in value which it may have acquired by
reason of those improvements, with the spouses entitled to the
right of retention of the land until the indemnity is made; and
5. The RTC of Zamboanga City from which this case originated is
DIRECTED to receive evidence and determine the amount of
indemnity to which petitioner spouses Manuel and Leticia Fuentes
are entitled.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 188289
5. For the support of their two (2) minor children, Jerome and Jena,
respondent David A. Noveras shall give them US$100.00 as
monthly allowance in addition to their income from their
presumptive legitimes, while petitioner Leticia Tacbiana shall take
care of their food, clothing, education and other needs while they
are in her custody in the USA. The monthly allowance due from the
respondent shall be increased in the future as the needs of the
children require and his financial capacity can afford;
6. Of the unpaid amount of P410,000.00 on the purchase price of
the Sampaloc property, the Paringit Spouses are hereby ordered to
pay P5,000.00 to respondent David A. Noveras and P405,000.00 to
the two children. The share of the respondent may be paid to him
directly but the share of the two children shall be deposited with a
local bank in Baler, Aurora, in a joint account tobe taken out in
their names, withdrawal from which shall only be made by them or
by their representative duly authorized with a Special Power of
Attorney. Such payment/deposit shall be made withinthe period of
thirty (30) days after receipt of a copy of this Decision, with the
passbook of the joint account to be submitted to the custody of the
Clerk of Court of this Court within the same period. Said passbook
can be withdrawn from the Clerk of Court only by the children or
their attorney-in-fact; and
7. The litigation expenses and attorneys fees incurred by the
parties shall be shouldered by them individually.11
The trial court recognized that since the parties are US citizens, the
laws that cover their legal and personalstatus are those of the USA.
With respect to their marriage, the parties are divorced by virtue of
the decree of dissolution of their marriage issued by the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo on 24June 2005. Under
their law, the parties marriage had already been dissolved. Thus,
the trial court considered the petition filed by Leticia as one for
liquidation of the absolute community of property regime with the
determination of the legitimes, support and custody of the
children, instead of an action for judicial separation of conjugal
property.
With respect to their property relations, the trial court first
classified their property regime as absolute community of property
because they did not execute any marriage settlement before the
solemnization of their marriage pursuant to Article 75 of the Family
Code. Then, the trial court ruled that in accordance with the
doctrine of processual presumption, Philippine law should apply
because the court cannot take judicial notice of the US law since
the parties did not submit any proof of their national law. The trial
court held that as the instant petition does not fall under the
provisions of the law for the grant of judicial separation of
properties, the absolute community properties cannot beforfeited
in favor of Leticia and her children. Moreover, the trial court
observed that Leticia failed to prove abandonment and infidelity
with preponderant evidence.
The trial court however ruled that Leticia is not entitled to the
reimbursements she is praying for considering that she already
acquired all of the properties in the USA. Relying still on the
principle of equity, the Court also adjudicated the Philippine
properties to David, subject to the payment of the childrens
presumptive legitimes. The trial court held that under Article 89 of
the Family Code, the waiver or renunciation made by David of his
property rights in the Joint Affidavit is void.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial courts Decision
by directing the equal division of the Philippine properties between
the spouses. Moreover with respect to the common childrens
presumptive legitime, the appellate court ordered both spouses to
each pay their children the amount of P520,000.00, thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. Numbers 2, 4
and 6 of the assailedDecision dated December 8, 2006 of Branch
96, RTC of Baler, Aurora Province, in Civil Case No. 828 are hereby
MODIFIED to read as follows:
2. The net assets of the absolute community of property of the
parties in the Philippines are hereby divided equally between
petitioner Leticia Noveras a.k.a. Leticia Tacbiana (sic) and
respondent David A. Noveras;
xxx
4. One-half of the properties awarded to petitioner Leticia Tacbiana
(sic) in paragraph 2 shall pertain to her minor children, Jerome and
Jena, as their presumptive legitimes which shall be annotated on
the titles/documents covering the said properties. Their share in
the income therefrom, if any, shall be remitted to them by
petitioner annually within the first half of January, starting 2008;
xxx
6. Respondent David A. Noveras and petitioner Leticia Tacbiana
(sic) are each ordered to pay the amount ofP520,000.00 to their
two children, Jerome and Jena, as their presumptive legitimes from
the sale of the Sampaloc property inclusive of the receivables
therefrom, which shall be deposited to a local bank of Baler,
Aurora, under a joint account in the latters names. The
payment/deposit shall be made within a period of thirty (30) days
from receipt ofa copy of this Decision and the corresponding
passbook entrusted to the custody ofthe Clerk of Court a quowithin
the same period, withdrawable only by the children or their
attorney-in-fact.
A number 8 is hereby added, which shall read as follows:
8. Respondent David A. Noveras is hereby ordered to pay petitioner
Leticia Tacbiana (sic) the amount of P1,040,000.00 representing
her share in the proceeds from the sale of the Sampaloc property.
(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared
an absentee;
(3) That loss of parental authority ofthe spouse of petitioner has
been decreed by the court;
(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or
failed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as
provided for in Article 101;
(5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the
marriage settlements has abused that power; and
(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been
separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly
improbable.
In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2), and (3), the
presentation of the final judgment against the guiltyor absent
spouse shall be enough basis for the grant of the decree ofjudicial
separation of property. (Emphasis supplied).
The trial court had categorically ruled that there was no
abandonment in this case to necessitate judicial separation of
properties under paragraph 4 of Article 135 of the Family Code.
The trial court ratiocinated:
Moreover, abandonment, under Article 101 of the Family Code
quoted above, must be for a valid cause and the spouse is deemed
to have abandoned the other when he/she has left the conjugal
dwelling without intention of returning. The intention of not
returning is prima facie presumed if the allegedly [sic] abandoning
spouse failed to give any information as to his or her whereabouts
within the period of three months from such abandonment.
In the instant case, the petitioner knows that the respondent has
returned to and stayed at his hometown in Maria Aurora,
Philippines, as she even went several times to visit him there after
the alleged abandonment. Also, the respondent has been going
back to the USA to visit her and their children until the relations
between them worsened. The last visit of said respondent was in
October 2004 when he and the petitioner discussed the filing by
the latter of a petition for dissolution of marriage with the
California court. Such turn for the worse of their relationship and
the filing of the saidpetition can also be considered as valid causes
for the respondent to stay in the Philippines.19
The records of this case are replete with evidence that Leticia and
David had indeed separated for more than a year and that
reconciliation is highly improbable. First, while actual abandonment
had not been proven, it is undisputed that the spouses had been
living separately since 2003 when David decided to go back to the
Philippines to set up his own business. Second, Leticia heard from
her friends that David has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez,
who represented herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who
worked in the hospital where David was once confined, testified
that she saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David in the
Consent for Operation form.20 Third and more significantly, they
had filed for divorce and it was granted by the California court in
June 2005.
Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated
for at least one year, the petition for judicial separation of absolute
community of property should be granted.
The grant of the judicial separation of the absolute community
property automatically dissolves the absolute community regime,
as stated in the 4th paragraph of Article 99 ofthe Family Code,
thus:
Art. 99. The absolute community terminates:
(1) Upon the death of either spouse;
(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
(4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage
under Articles 134 to 138. (Emphasis supplied).