AGAPAY vs. PALANG G.R. No.

116668 July 28, 1997 Facts: Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage with Carlina (or Cornelia) on July 16, 1949. A few months after the wedding, in October 1949, he left for work in Hawaii. Miguel and Carlinas only child, Herminia Palang, was born on May 12, 1950. During his visit in 1964 to the Philippines, he stayed with his brother in Zambales. The trial court found that as early as 1957, Miguel had attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned for good in 1972, Miguel refused to stay with Carlina but stayed alone in a house in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. On July 15, 1973, 63 yr old Miguel contracted with second marriage with 19 yr old Erlinda Agapay. Two months earlier, Miguel and Erlinda jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located at San Felipe, Binalonan Pangasinan. A house and lot in Binalonan, Pangasinan was also purchased by Erlinda as sole vendee. On October 1975, Miguel and Cornelia Palang executed a deed of donation as a form of compromise agreement. The parties agreed to donate their conjugal property to their only child, Herminia Palang. Miguel and Erlinda had a son, Kristopher A. Palang. In 1979, Miguel and Erlinda were convicted of Concubinage upon Carlinas complaint. Two years later, Miguel died. On July 11, 1979, Carlina Palang and her daughter Herminia filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession of the Riceland and house and lot both located at Binalonan, Pangasinan allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with Erlinda Agapay. The RTC dismissed the case and ruled in favour of Agapay. On appeal, the respondent court reversed the trial courts decision and declared Carlina and Herminia Palang the owners of the properties in question. Issue(s): 1. Whether or not the court erred in granting the ownership of the two parcels of land to Carlina and Herminia Palang? 2. Whether or not the court erred in not declaring Kristopher Palang as Miguels illegitimate son and thus entitled to inherit Miguels estate? 3. Whether or not Kristopher Palang should be considered as party-defendant in the civil case? Decision: 1. No. Under Art 148 of the Family Code of the Philippines, only properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. It must be stressed that actual contribution is required in this

provision. In the case at bar, Erlinda failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase of the Riceland in Binalonan, Pangasinan, the court finds no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Consequently, the Riceland should, as correctly held by the CA, revert to the conjugal partnership property of the deceased Miguel and Carlina Palang. 2. No. The issue is resolved in the respondent courts pronouncement regarding Kristophers heirship and filiation inasmuch as question as to who are the heirs of the decedent, proof of filiation of illegitimate children and the determination of the estate of the latter and claims thereto should be ventilated in the proper probate court or in a special proceeding instituted for that purpose and cannot be adjudicated in the instant ordinary civil action xxx. 3. Yes. The trial court erred gravely. Kristopher, not having been impleaded, was therefore not a party to the case at bar. His mother, Erlinda, cannot be called his guardian ad litem for he was not involved in the case at bar. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.