Consolacion Villanueva vs.

IAC

FACTS:

Spouses Gracano Aranas and Nicolasa Bunsa were the owners of a parcel of land

which after they died, their surviving children Modesto and Federico Aranas,adjudicated

the land to themselves under a deed of extrajudicial partition. Modesto obtained a

Torrens title in his name from the Capiz Registry of Property. His wife Victoria Comorro,

predeceased him. They had no children but Modesto was survived by two illegitimate

children, Dorothea and Teodoro. These two borrowed P18,000 to Jesus Bernas. As

security, they mortgaged their fathers property to Bernas. The two failed to pay their

loan. Bernas caused the extrajudicial forclosure o the mortgage and acquired the land

as the highest bidder. After the foreclosure sale, Dorothea and Teodoro executed a

deed of extrajudicial partition. About a month later, Consolacion Villanueva and

Raymundo Aranas filed a complaint against Jesus and Remedios Bernas. The plaintiffs

prayed that the latters title be cancelled and they be declared co-owners of the land. On

the ground that the will executed by Victoria will allegedly bequeathed to Dorothea and

TEodoro all his interests in his conjugal partnership with Victoria.

ISSUE: WON the said property be a conjugal property of the spouses Modesto and

Victoria.

RULING:

The land was not a conjugal partnership property of Victoria and Modesto. It was the

latters exclusive private property which he had inherited from his parents.

Article 148 of the Civil Code clearly decrees: that to be considered as the exclusive

property of each spouseis inter alia, that which each acquires, during the marriage by

lucrative title. Moreover, Victoria died about 2 years ahead of Modesto. She never

therefore inherited any part of the land and hence, had nothing to bequeath y will or

otherwise to Villanueva or anybody else.

Francisco vs. CA

Petitioner, the legal wife of private respondent Eusebio Francisco (Eusebio) by his

second marriage filed a suit for damages and for annulment of general power of

attorneyauthorizing Conchita Evangelista (Eusebios daughter in his first marriage) to

administer thehouse and lot together with the apartments allegedly acquired by

petitioner and Eusebio duringtheir conjugal partnership. The trial court rendered

judgment in favor of private respondents dueto petitioners failure to establish proof that

said properties were acquired during the existence of the second conjugal partnership,

or that they pertained exclusively to the petitioner. As such, theCA ruled that those

properties belong exclusively to Eusebio, and that he has the capacity toadminister

them.

ISSUE:Whether or not the appellate court committed reversible error in affirming the

trialcourt's ruling that the properties, subject matter of controversy, are not conjugal but

the capitalproperties of Eusebio exclusively.

RULING:

SC resolved the issue of the nature of the contested properties based on thep rovisions

of the New Civil Code. Indeed, Articles 158 and 160 of the New Civil Code have

beenrepealed by the Family Code of the Philippines. Nonetheless, SC cannot invoke

the new law inthis case without impairing prior vested rights pursuant to Article 256 in

relation to Article 105(second paragraph) of the Family Code. Accordingly, the repeal of

Articles 158 and 160 of the New Civil Code does not operate to prejudice or otherwise

affect rights which have become vested or accrued while the said provisions were in

force
 Coja vs. CA

FACTS:

Luz Aquillo Victor (hereafter Luz) and Feliciano Aquillo, Jr, both deceased, were
the legitimate children of the late spouses Feliciano Aquillo, Sr. and Lorenza Mangarin
Aquillo. During their marriage, Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza acquired a lot upon which they
built their conjugal home. After the death of Lorenza, Feliciano Sr. cohabited with Paz
Lachica and lived at the aforesaid house. However, after Lorenzas death, her heirs
failed to partition their hereditary shares in their inheritance. While Lorenza was
cohabiting with Feliciano Sr., Paz Lachica purchased a lot from the heirs of Juan
Rivas. She later sold 40.10 square meters of the property to Isabel L. de Real leaving
her with only 151.9 square meters. Two (2) days before he died, Feliciano Sr. married
Paz Lachica. ]After Feliciano Sr. died, his heirs also failed to partition among themselves
their hereditary shares in their inheritance. Paz Lachica and Spouses Charlito Coja and
Annie Mesa Coja, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale wherein the former sold the 336-
square meter parcel of land. Repondents filed an action for recovery of possession and
ownership with damages. Respondents claimed that they are the true and lawful heirs
of the Spouses Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza; that Paz Lachica refused to deliver the
property to its rightful owners despite repeated demands; that Paz Lachica appropriated
the subject property to herself and had the tax declaration transferred to her name; that
Paz Lachica sold the property to the Spouses Coja; and that the Spouses Coja failed to
deliver the subject property to the rightful heirs despite repeated demands.

ISSUE: WON the subject property was the paraphernal property of Paz Lachica since
she purchased the property before she married Feliciano Sr.

RULING:

Article 160 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 160. 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.

All properties acquired during the marriage are thus disputably presumed to belong to
the conjugal partnership. As a condition for the operation of above article, in favor of the
conjugal partnership, the party who invokes the presumption must first prove that the
property was acquired during the marriage. The CA declared that the 120-square meter
lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza because the
spouses acquired it during the subsistence of their marriage and the property was in
fact declared for taxation purposes during the said period. Thus, the statutory
presumption set forth in Article 160 of the Civil Code became operative. Having been
acquired during the marital union of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza, the subject 120-square
meter portion of the property sold by Paz Lachica to the Spouses Coja is presumed to
be the conjugal property of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza.
Petitioners insist that the property subject of the sale was exclusively owned by Paz
Lachica having been purchased prior to her marriage with Feliciano Sr. The argument is
not supported by evidence. Lachica claims ownership over the property in question on
the basis only of a tax declaration issued in her name. Revision was done upon Paz
Lachicas request after the death of Feliciano Sr. The revision of the tax declaration or
the issuance of a new one in her name, did not operate and transfer title of the subject
property to her. The property remained as one that formed part of the conjugal property
of Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza.

Upon the death of Lorenza, the conjugal partnership was terminated. As a result,
one half of the property was automatically reserved in favor of the surviving spouse,
Feliciano Sr. as his share in the conjugal partnership. The other half, which is the share
of Lorenza, was transmitted to Lorenzas heirs, Feliciano Jr., Luz, and her husband
Feliciano Sr., who is entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child.