FACTS:
• October 1931: Marcelo Castillo, Sr., being a widower, married Macaria Pasco, a widow who had survived 2 previous husbands
• Petitioners were children and grandchildren of Marcelo Castillo, Sr., by his previous marriage • 1932: Gabriel and Purificacion Gonzales, as co-owners of the litigated fishpond, executed a deed of sale conveying said property to spouses Marcelo Castillo and Macaria Pasco (paid in installments) • April 3, 1933; Marcelo died
• June 8, 1934: Macaria married her 4th husband, Luis San Juan
• Petitioners filed complaint for partition and accounting
• CA dismissed complaint: fishpond is Macaria‘s exclusive paraphernal property because it was purchased with exclusive funds of the wife (a woman of means even before marriage to Marcelo) • Payment of installments:
o 1,000 = 600 Gabriel Gonzales owed to Pasco + 400 cash from proceeds of sale of one of Macaria‘s nipa huts
o 2,000 = proceeds of loan from Dr. Nicanor Jacinto, to whom the fishpond was mortgaged by both spouses
o 3,000 = loan secured by a mortgage on 2 parcels of land assessed in the name of Macaria and one of which she had inherited from a former husband, while the other lot encumbered was assessed in her exclusive name
• Mortgage to Dr. Jacinto paid by Macaria (Marcelo‘s estate was inadequate to pay off his debts) ISSUE:
• WON the litigated fishpond is Macaria‘s paraphernal property
HELD:
• PARTLY
o 1932 → the applicable law was Spanish Civil Code of 1889
• property acquired for onerous consideration during the marriage was deemed conjugal or separate property depending on the source of funds employed for its acquisition
• Art. 1369: That bought with money belonging exclusively to the wife or the husband is separate property
• Art. 1401. To the conjugal property belong property acquired for valuable consideration during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the spouses only.
ú Last clause indicates that the circumstance of sale of fishpond in question being made by the original owners in favor of both spouses is indifferent for the determination of whether the property should be deemed paraphernal or conjugal
o 1st Installment
• petitioners: no express finding that 600 owed by Gabriel Gonzales came exclusively from private funds of Macaria
• Art. 1416 → wife cannot bind her husband without his consent → her private transaction are presumed to be for her own account
o 2nd and 3rd Installments
• Petitioners: money was raised by loans to both Marcelo and Macaria as joint borrowers → conjugal liabilities
• Paid with money from conjugal partnership o Property belongs to both patrimonies in common, in proportion to the contributions of each. • 1/6 is paraphernal
• 5/6 is conjugal
o Payment of Macaria of mortgage debt to Dr. Jacinto does not result in increasing her share in the property
Dismissal of original complaint is revoked and set aside and record remanded to court of origin for further proceedings FC 119 FC 120 Padilla vs Padilla 74 Phil 377 FACTS:
Liquidation of conjugal property required before settlement of will of deceased Narciso Padilla
Widow, Concepcion Paterno Vda. De Padilla commenced instant proceedings by filing a petition wherein she prayed that her paraphernal property be segregated from the inventoried estate and delivered to her together with the corresponding reimbursements and indemnities; that she be given ½
of the conjugal partnership property; and that her usufructuary right over ½ of the portion pertaining to the heir instituted in the will be recognized.
CFI declared certain sums of money to be paraphernal and ordering the same to be delivered to the widow P 50,000.00
Testators mother and instituted heir, Isabel Bibby Vda. De Padilla appealed
Narciso and Concepcion were married in 1912 Husband (med student then) brought little into the partnership, while wife contributed a considerable amount
Practically all the conjugal partnership property came from fruits of the paraphernal property
Husband left no children and gave whole estate to mother
Property included in the inventory is appraised at 261,000
ISSUE:
WON the Torrens titles are final and incontrovertible WON the value of the paraphernal land to be reimbursed to the wife is that obtaining at the time of the construction of the building or the value at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership WON the value of the paraphernal buildings which were demolished to make possible the construction of new ones, at the expense of the conjugal partnership should be reimbursed to the wife
HELD: NO
There is nothing sacrosanct (inviolable) and definitive in the certificate of title when the conjugal partnership is liquidated.
The true and real owner may be shown
Because of feelings of trust existing between the spouses, certificates of title are often secured in the name of both, or
of either, regardless of the true ownership of the property and regardless of the source of money
Upon liquidation, trust should be recognized and enforced so that the real ownership of the property may be established Torrens title should not be turned
into an instrument for deprivation of ownership That prevailing from the time of the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership Art. 1404 of CC.
Mere construction of a building from common fund does not automatically convey the ownership of the wife‘s land to the conjugal partnership Erecting a building is merely a
exercise of the right of usufruct pertaining to the conjugal partnership over the wife‘s land In consequence of this usufructuary right, the conjugal partnership is not bound to pay any rent during the occupation of the wife‘s land because if the lot were leased to a 3rd person, instead of being occupied by the new construction from partnership funds, the rent from the third person would belong to the conjugal partnership YES
The value of the old building at the time they were torn down should be paid to the wife Judgment affirmed
Caltex vs Felias 108 Phil 873 Spouses Juliano and Eulalia Felias donated Lot No.
107 to their daughter, Felisa Felias (Private Respondent) on March 31, 1928.
March 26, 1941: Trial court held that in a case against respondent‘s husband (Simeon Sawamoto), he had to pay Texas Company (Phil.) Inc. a sum of P661.94 plus legal interest and attorney‘s fees.
A writ of execution was issued to the provincial sheriff who levied upon Lot No. 107 together with the improvements and a small parcel of coconut land and sold these at a public auction to
Texas Company now Caltex (Phil.) Inc.
Provincial Sherrif executed a final deed of sale which was duly recorded on a TCT.
Felisa filed an action, declaring herself the owner of the 2 parcels of land.
Trial court‘s decision:
Sale of Lot. No. 107 is null and void Sale of coconut land is NOT. It
rightfully belongs to Caltex. Both parties appealed and CA declared that:
Lot. No. 107 belongs to Felisa and ordered the Register of Deeds to Cancel the entry of the levy,
the certificate of sale and the deed of sale by the sheriff. Caltex is still the exclusive owner of
the small parcel of coconut land.
Issues:
What is the status and ownership of Lot 107 of the cadastral survey of the City of Agusan a the time it was levied upon and later sold by the Sheriff?
Held:
IT EXCLUSIVELY BELONGS TO FELISA FELIAS.
Ratio:
It was discovered by the CA that it was donated by her parents to her, it is her paraphernal property. (exclusively owned by her)
It was sold by the Sheriff who believed it to be conjugal property as stipulated in Art 1404 of the OCC and Art. 158 of the new Civil Code (this is a 1960 case!)
Art. 1404 (2): Buildings constructed during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouse shall also belong to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be paid to the spouse owning the same. Art. 158 (2): Buildings constructed at the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses, also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same.
HOWEVER, the building was already there even before the lot was donated to Felisa.
Therefore, Art. 1404 should not apply. Felisa exclusively owns both LAND and the
BUILDING upon it.
This being her own means that it is not subject to the obligations of her husband.
Furthermore, the building was destroyed at the time of the sale by the Sheriff, which means that the said house included in the deeds executed were no longer in existence
Vda de Padilla vs Paterno 3 SCRA 678 Facts:
- 1912 – Narciso Padilla married Concepcion Paterno Feb 12 1934- Padilla died leaving his mother as universal heiress.
-TC: made most of the properties of Padilla conjugal due to buildings being erected on the once paraphernal property
- Probate court: ruled that paraphernal properties which were only under the administration of Narciso Padilla should be given back to Concepcion Paterno ISSUE:
- WON income of estates that were declared paraphernal in character only belongs to Concepcion Paterno
- WON Concepcion can still claim for fruits of her paraphernal property since probate court already awarded her no fruits before and thus it would be res judicata
- WON she is entitled to the improvements of the R. Hidalgo Propery
HELD:
-(1) YES, ownership of land is retained by wife until she is paid the value of the lot as result of liquidation of conjugal partnership. Mere construction of building from common funds does not automatically make the land conjugal
- destruction of improvements in paraphernal property made said property still paraphernal and should be returned to estate of widow.
- (2) YES, Concepcion is sole owner of all income from paraphernal property from the time of administration of deceased Narciso Padilla until their delivery to the estate of deceased.
- however those that were reimbursed or paid to the estate of Concepcion and thus have become conjugal, fruits should be shared since they are now conjugal.
- belong now to both heir of husband and estate of Concepcion
Calimlim v. Fortun