Arquitectura

FACTS:

Respondents

- legitimate children of Agripino Cuenca and Maria Bangahon, both deceased, owners of the subject parcels of land

- allege that some of the parcels are paraphernal property of Maria while all others are conjugal

- allege that Engracia Basadre and Agripino were not legally married because at the time they lived together Agripino was married to a certain Jesusa Pagar

Petitioners

- Denied legitimacy of the marriage between Agripino and Maria as well as the legitimacy of the respondents

- Claimed that Agripino and their mother Engracia Basadre were legally married and that they are the legitimate children thereof

- Contend that subject parcels of land are conjugal properties of Agripino and Engracia

Appellate Court

- Agripino, in his lifetime, expressed in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Maria Bangahon → proofs that properties in question belong exclusively to Maria as her paraphernal property -Tax declarations presented by petitioners are not real evidence to prove ownership or possession

- Petitioners wanted to present new evidence to prove:

o That Engraciaand Agripino were legally married

o That other petitioners were the legitimate children

o That subject parcels of land were conjugal properties of Agripino and Engracia

ISSUES:

•WON Engracia is entitiled to inherit from Agripino •WON the subject parcels of land were conjugal properties of Agripino and Engracia (WON presumption should hold)

HELD: •Yes

Engracia was entitled to inherit from Agripino Cuenca together with the respondents (legit children by Maria) in accordance with Art. 892 of the NCC

Appellate Court declared Engracia as surviving spouse → no need to prove legality of marriage much less to prove the legitimacy of the other petitioners •NO

oArt. 160 of NCC: 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 the wife

oPresumption refers only to the property acquired during marriage and doesn‘t operate when there is no showing as to when property alleged to be conjugal was acquired

oDocuments sought to be presented do not show that the claims to the subject parcles consisting of homestead lands were perfected during the marriage of Agripino and Engracia

oPresumption cannot prevail when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved

• Documents show that 5 out of 8 parcels covered are titled in the name of either respondent Meladora or Retituto

oPresumption cannot prevail Petition Dismissed

FC117

Cheesman vs IAC 193 SCRA 93 FACTS:

Thomas Cheesman and Criselda Cheesman were married (1970) but separated (1981)

June 4, 1947: Deed of Sale and Transfer of Possessory rights executed by Armande Alteras in favor of Criselda Cheesman

Thomas Cheesman was aware of the deed and did not object to the transfer being made only to his wife

Tax declarations for the property purchased were issued in the name of Criselda with knowledge of Thomas and without his objection)

Criselda assumed exclusive management and administration of property, leasing it to tenants

July 1, 1981: Criselda sold the property to Estelita without the knowledge or consent of Thomas

July 31, 1981: Thomas brought suit against Criselda and Estelita, praying for the annulment of the sale on the ground that the transaction had been executed without his knowledge and consent Answer: property was paraphernal,

purchased by Criselda‘s exclusive funds RTC: sale was void ab initio

Summary judgment: sale was valid

Evidence on record satisfactorily overcame the disputable presumption in Art. 160 of NCC Property was Criselda‘s

paraphernal property

Legal presumption could not apply inasmuch as the husband- plaintiff is an American citizen and therefore disqualified under the consti to acquire and own real properties

WON Thomas has rights over the property WON the residential land is conjugal

property

WON the property would be conjugal property if Criselda used conjugal funds HELD:

NO

Constitutional provision (Sec. 14, Art. XIV of 1973 Consti) prohibits sale to aliens of residential land

Thomas acquired no right over the property by virtue of the land NO

Thomas had, and has no capacity or personality to question the

subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property If the property were to be declared

conjugal, this would accord the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and right over land  against constitution NO Against constitution Petition Denied Villanueva vs CA 427 SCRA 439 FACTS:

Oct 7, 1926 - Plaintiff Eusebia is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas 5 children

During their marriage, they acquired real properties and all improvements situated in Mandue City and Consolacion (22 properties)

Nicolas is co-owner of a parcel of land in Mandaue which he inherited from his parents as well as the purchasers of hereditary shares of approximately 8 parcels of land in Mandaue City  earns income (Nicolas only one to receive)

1945: Nicolas no longer lived with legitimate family and cohabited with Pacita (1 illegitimate son) Pacita has no occupation, no properties of her own 1985: Nicolas suffered a stroke

1985-present: Illegitimate child Procopio has been receiving the income of said properties

Defendants asked for settlement but no such thing was reached

RTC judgment in favor of respondents (legit family) Art. 116 (presumption)  Eusebia presented solid evidence, petitioners failed to meet standard proof required to maintain their claim that the subject properties are paraphernal properties of Nicolas Appeal was made

Eusebia died on 1996  heirs substituted 1996: Pacita and Nicolas married CA affirmed RTC decision

ISSUES:

WON subject properties are conjugal

HELD: YES

Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations between Nicolas and Eusebia even if they were married before the effectivity of FC (Art. 105) Under FC, if the properties are

acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal

Burden of proof  party claiming that they are not conjugal Subject properties were acquired

during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia

Tax declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under Art. 116 Whether a property is conjugal or

not is determined by law and not by the will of one of the spouses

No unilateral declaration by one spouse can change the character of conjugal property (intent of Nicolas in misrepresenting himself as single in deeds of sale was to exclude Eusebia)

Cohabitation of a spouse with another person does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage

Petition Denied

Zulueta v. Pan-Am