G.R. No.

159310 February 24, 2009

CAMILLO F. BORROMEO, petitioner, vs. ANTONIETTA O DESCALLAR, respondent.

FACTS:
Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, met respondent Antonietta Opalla-Descallar. They fell in love and live
together. They bought a house and lot and an Absolute Deed of Sale was issued in their names. However,
when the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration, it was refused on the ground that Jambrich
was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain. Consequently, his name was
erased but his signature remained and the property was issued on the name of the Respondent alone.
However their relationship did not last long and they found new love.

Jambrich met the petitioner who was engaged in business. Jambrich indebted the petitioner for a sum of
money and to pay his debt, he sold some of his properties to the petitioner and a Deed of Absolute
Sale/Assignment was issued in his favor. However, when the Petitioner sought to register the deed of
assignment it found out that said land was registered in the name of Respondent. Petitioner filed a
complaint against respondent for recovery of real property.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Jambrich has no title to the properties in question and may not transfer and assign any
rights and interest in favor of the petitioner?
2. Whether or not the registration of the properties in the name of respondents make his the owner thereof.

RULINGS:

1. The evidence clearly shows that as between respondent and Jambrich, it was Jambrich who possesses
the financial capacity to acquire the properties in dispute. At the time of the acquisition of the properties,
Jamrich was the source of funds used to purchase the three parcels of land, and to construct the house.
Jambrich was the owner of the properties in question, but his name was deleted in the Deed of Absolute
Sale because of legal constraints. Nevertheless, his signature remained in the deed of sale where he signed
as a buyer. Thus, Jambrich has all authority to transfer all his rights, interest and participation over the
subject properties to petitioner by virtue of Deed of Assignment. Furthermore, the fact that the disputed
properties were acquired during the couples cohabitation does not help the respondent. The rule of co-
ownership applies to a man and a woman living exclusively with each other as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage, but otherwise capacitated to marry each other does not apply. At the case at bar,
respondent was still legally married to another when she and Jambrich lived together. In such an
adulterous relationship and no co-ownership exists between the parties. It is necessary for each of the
partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to able to lay claim
to any portion of it.

2. It is settled rule that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is only a means of confirming
the existence with notice to the world at large. The mere possession of a title does not make one the true
owner of the property. Thus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her
name does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the owner.

Page 1 of 1