Art. 148 FC (but before, Art 144 CC was used) In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article9, only the 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. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article. The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.
FACTS:
Teresita Yaptinchay filed a case at the Ct. of First Instance(CFI) of Rizal, Pasay City, wherein she sought to be appointed as both Special and Regular administratix of the estates of Isidro Yaptinchay (who she allegedly cohabited with for 19 years), when the latter passed away without a will. However, the same had been granted to Virginia Yaptinchay, daughter of the
9 Note: cohabitation cases in Article 148:
1. Parties who have no legal capacity to marry or have some legal impediment to marry each other (incestuous, less than 18, against public policy) but without getting married live together as H and W 2. Where one or both parties are validly married to others but live together in an adulterous relationship
deceased with his alleged legitimate wife, Josefina Yaptinchay. Virginia then submitted a preliminary inventory of the assets of the estate of her father, including the disputed lot in North Forbes Park. Teresita however, filed another case, this time at the Pasig Branch, praying for an action of replevin, preliminary injunction, and for liquidation of the supposed partnership she had when she cohabited with the deceased (+damages). The judge then issued a TRO to prevent the respondents from disposing any of the properties listed in the complaint and from interfering with the rights of the respondent to and possession over the Forbes property. CFI Pasig branch:
(June 15, 1966) Upon the defendant's (Virginia and family) filing a bond in the amount of p10k, let a writ of preliminary injunction requiring Teresita to deliver the Forbes property to Virginia and refrain from disturbing the possession of the same.
(June 28, 1966) Amended order: Enjoining defendant and their agents from selling, disposing, or otherwise encumbering said properly in any manner pending the termination of this case.
(August 8, 1966) Petitioner's motion to reconsider June 15 order overturned: principally Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, took actual or physical possession of the said properties which were formerly held by the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay and the plaintiff, by virtue of her appointment and under her authority, as Special Administratrix of the estate of the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.
ISSUES:
(3) WON respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing an injunctive writ transferring the Forbes property to Virginia while Teresita was occupying the said property
(4) WON Teresita can claim that she was the co-owner of the Forbes property by virtue
Yaptinchay v. Torres
190 332 Quiambao
Persons and Family Relations
of her common law relationship with the deceased
HELD:
Petition for certiorari dismissed, Writ of preliminary injunction set aside. (No errors as to orders of respondent judge.)
(1) No. Although the long standing rule is that injunction is not to be granted for the purpose of taking property out of possession and/or control of a party and placing it in that of another whose title thereto has not been clearly established, the same rests upon the sound discretion of the Court. Teresita wasn't able to clearly establish that the loans she contracted during the construction of the house were made for the same. On the contrary, it was evident that the loans were made for purposes other than the construction of the Forbes home. Also, the unsupported assertion
that the Forbes home is Teresita's exclusive property may not override the prima facie presumption that since the house was constructed on Isidro's lot during his marriage with Josefina, the same is part of the conjugal property of the couple and is thus subject to the control of the special administratix.
(2) No. Art. 144 CC which states, "When man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership," is circumscribed with conditions that must first be shown before rights may accrue. Petitioner was not able to CLEARLY SHOW that she had contributed to the acquisition of the property involved.
Juaniza v. Jose
191 332 Quilala
Persons and Family Relations
DOCTRINE:
Co-ownership contemplated in Art 144, requires that the man and woman living together must not be incapacitated to contract marriage
FACTS:
Eugenio Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with, Rosalia Arroyo, for sixteen 16 years in a relationship like husband and wife.
Eugenio Jose, an owner and operator of a passenger jeepney involved in an accident of collision with a freight train of the Philippine National Railways which resulted in the death to seven 7 and physical injuries to five 5 of its passengers.
The CFI charged damages to Eugenio and Rosalia jointly and severally to pay:
Plaintiff Victor Juaniza the sum of P1,600.00 plus legal interest from date of complaint until fully paid and costs of suit.
Pay the respective heirs of the deceased Josefa P. Leus, Fausto Retrita, Nestor del Rosario Añonuevo and Arceli de la Cueva in the sum of P12,000.00 for the life of each of said deceased, with legal interest from date of complaint, and costs of suit.
Rosalia filed for a motion for consideration to exempt her from paying damages jointly and severally with Eugenio
RTC denied the motion pursuant to Art 144 of the CC:
When a man and woman living together as husband and wife, but they are not
married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
ISSUES:
- WON Article 1441 of the Civil Code is applicable in a case where one of the parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to marry - NO
- WON Rosalia who is not a registered owner of the jeepney can be held jointly and severally liable for damages with the registered owner of the same. – NO
HELD:
Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage.
Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. Under the aforecited provision of the Civil Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney. Rosalia Arroyo, who is not the registered owner of the jeepney can neither be liable for damages caused by its operation.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Rosalia Arroyo is hereby declared free from any liability for damages and the appealed decision is hereby modified accordingly. No costs.