Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Tumlos vs Fernandez

GR No. 137650, April 12, 2000


FACTS: Spouses Fernandez were involved in an action for ejectment filed
against the Tumloses. Spouses Fernandez alleged that they are the absolute
owners of an apartment building that through their tolerance they allowed
the Tumlos to occupy the apartment for the last 7 years without payment of
any rent. It was agreed that Guillerma will pay 1,600 a month while the
other defendants promised to pay 1,000 a month which was not complied
with. Demand was made several times for the defendants to vacate the
premises as they are in need of the property for the construction of a new
building.
It was alleged that Mario and Guillerma had an amorous relationship and that
they acquired the property in question. It was likewise alleged that they
lived together in the said apartment building with theirchildren for about 10
years and that Guillerma administered the property by collecting rentals from
the lessees until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the status of
their marriage.
ISSUE: whether or not Guillerma is a co-owner of the said apartment under
Article 148.
HELD: No. Clearly, there is no basis for petitioners claim of co-ownership. The
property in question belongs to the conjugal partnership of respondents.

The claim was not satisfactorily proven by Guillerma since there were no
other evidence presented to validate it except for the said affidavit. Even if
the allegations of having cohabited with Mario and that she bore him two
children were true, the claim of co-ownership still cannot be accepted. Mario
is validly married with Lourdes hence Guillerma and Mario are not
capacitated to marry each other. The property relation governing their
supposed cohabitation is under Article 148 of the Family Code. Actual
contribution is required by the said provision in contrast to Art 147 which
states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household
are regarded as contributions to the acquisitions of common property by one
who has no salary, income, work or industry. Such is not included in Art 148.
If actual contribution is not proven then there can be no co-ownership and no
presumption of equal shares.