Go-Bangayan vs Bangayan

July 3, 2013
Carpio, J.

Facts
Benjamin Bangayan married Azucena Alegre on Sept 10, 1973 and had three children
In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally Go-Bangayan, a customer in his
familys business. In 1981, Azucena left for the US.
In Feb 1982, Benjamin and Sally lived together. Sallys father was against their love, so in order to
appease the latter, Sally brought Benjamin to an office in Santolan, Pasig, where they signed a
purported marriage contract. Knowing Benjamins marital status, Sally assured him that the
marriage contract would not be registered.
During the period of their cohabitation, they acquired 7 real properties
o 1 was registered in the names of Benjamin and Sally as spouses
o 2 were registered in the name of Benjamin, married to Sally
o 2 were registered in the name of Sally, married to Benjamin
o 2 were registered in the name of Sally as a single individual
In 1994, their relationship ended when Sally left for Canada, bringing the children, and
subsequently filing criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of documents.
Benjamin, in turn, filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage/non-existent marriage for bigamy
and lack of formal requisites to a valid marriage, and asked for the partition of the properties in
accordance with Art. 148 of the Family Code; aside from the 7 properties acquired during their
cohabitation, Sally named 37 more properties she purports is to be partitioned.
With regards to the partition, the RTC ruled that the 37 properties Sally named were owned by
Benjamins parents given to their children, including Benjamin, as advance inheritance. As to the 7
properties, Sally failed to prove any actual contribution to the purchase of 5 of those properties;
and the court ruled that because Sally acted in bad faith, knowing Benjamin was married to
Azucena, she forfeited her share in the remaining two properties to the children, while Benjamins
share reverted to his conjugal partnership with Azucena.
CA modified the ruling on the 7 properties acquired during cohabitation, saying that only two
properties belong to Benjamin exclusively because he was able to establish that he acquired them
solely. 4 of the properties belonged to Sally, in the absence of proof of Benjamins contribution,
and 1 property was owned by them in common, of which Benjamins share will accrue to his
conjugal partnership with Azucena, and Sallys share shall accrue to her in the absence of bad
faith.

Issue: WoN Art. 148 was applied correctly

Held: Yes.

Benjamin and Sally cohabited without the benefit of marriage; thus, they shall own only properties
acquired by them through actual joint contribution in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. In this case, the 37 properties Sally claims should be excluded, and as to the remaining 7
properties acquired during cohabitation, the ruling of the CA was correct; they owned only 1 property in
common.