You are on page 1of 5

ABING V.

WAEYAN (Coownership)

497 SCRA 202


July 31, 2006

Facts: In 1986, petitioner and respondent cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
Together, they bought a house erected on a lot owned by Dino in Benguet. The tax declaration was
thereafter transferred to respondents name.

In 1995, they decided to partition their properties as their relationship soured. Eventually, petitioner
demanded respondent to vacate the annex structure when respondent failed to pay petitioners share in
their properties. Petitioner alleged that he alone paid for the construction of the annex structure.

Issue: Whether or not the property subject of the suit pertains to the exclusive ownership of petitioner.

Held: Any property acquired by common-law spouses during their period of cohabitation is presumed to
have been obtained through their joint efforts and is owned by them in equal shares. Their property
relationship is governed by the rules on co-ownership. And under this regime, they owned their properties
in common in equal shares. Being herself a co-owner of the structure in question, respondent, as correctly
ruled by the CA, may not be ejected therefrom.

Juaniza v. Jose
89 S 306
March 30, 1979

FACTS: Respondent owned and operated a jeepney which got involved in an accident of collision, causing
death to 7 and physical injuries to 5.

Petitioner was held by the lower court to be jointly and severally liable with respondent, as respondents
paramour/common-law wife, to the damages arising from the accident.

Lower court based their decision on Art.144, CC:


When a man and woman living together ashusband 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 ownership.

ISSUE: Can petitioner be held liable for the obligation arising from the accident to which respondents
property was involved?

Does common-law relationship, where one party is incapacitated to marry, automatically adopts co-
ownership by virtue of the CC?

RULING: No. Petitioner shall not be held liable for the damages. Art.144 pertains only to those common-
law relationships where neither of the parties suffer from any legal impediment to marry. Respondent is
legally married to another woman and is thus incapacitated to marry petitioner.
Co-ownership cannot apply to their relationship. Petitioner is not considered a co-owner of the jeepney.
Moreover, the jeepney was registered only under the name of respondent.

Bucoy v. Paulino, et al.


G.R. No. L-25775, April 26, 1968

FACTS: Reynaldo Paulino and Tomasita Bucoy were married in 1956. They acquired seven parcels of
land, six lots and another one using their savings from a realty corporation on installment basis. In 1961,
the spouses commenced the construction of a motel. Some materials for construction were obtained on
credit from a company and defendants father.

Reynaldo had an illicit relationship with Eufemia Bernardo. With the latters help, the former obtained three
real estate mortgage loans from a bank with the seven lots as collateral, which were registered under his
name. The third loan was credited by the bank to Eufemias account, from which Reynaldo borrowed
money for the hotels construction.

The relationship was made known to Tomasita in 1961 and, the latter left their house. Reynaldo decided to
dispose of his properties. Eufemia purchased said properties and assumed its obligations.

When Tomasita learned of the sale of the properties, she filed a complaint with the trial court to seek the
annulment of said deeds of sale and the cancellations of titles in favor of Eufemia. The trial court ruled in
favor of Eufemia, to which the spouses appealed and argued that said properties are conjugal despite the
fact that Reynaldo used single as civil status.

ISSUE: Should the alienation of the properties be annulled?

HELD: I t w a s h e l d t h a t t h e a l i e n a t i o n o r encumbrance must be annulled in its entirety and


not only insofar as the share of the wife in the conjugal property is concerned. Although the transaction
in the said case was declared void and not merely voidable, the rationale for the annulment of the
whole transaction is the same thus the plain meaning attached to the plain language of the
law is that the contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without the wife's consent, may
be annulled by the wife.

Buenaventura VS. CA
G.R. Nos. 127358 and G.R. Nos. 127449
March 31, 2005

Facts: Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that
both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated.
The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage entered into between petitioner and respondent null and
violation ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property; ordered petitioner a
regular support in favor of his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly, subject to modification as the
necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the minor to his mother.
Petitioner appealed before the CA. While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon respondents motion
issued a resolution increasing the support pendants like to P20, 000.
The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. Petitioner
motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not co-ownership is applicable to valid marriage.

Held: Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage, the provisions of
article 50 in relation to articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains, as the case maybe, do not apply. Rather the
general rule applies, which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable
to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership.
Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both by the RTC and the
CA, to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-
ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or
involved in said distribution.

Juaniza v. Jose
G.R. No. L-50127-28, March 30, 1979

FACTS: Eugenio Lopez owned and operated a jeepney which got involved in an accident of collision,
causing death to 7 and physical injuries to 5. He was married to Socorro Ramos, but had been cohabiting
with Rosalia Aquino for 16 years.

Aquino was held by the lower court to be jointly and severally liable with Lopez, as a paramour/common-
law wife to the latter, to the damages arising from the accident. Said court based their decision on Art.144,
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 ownership. Hence, they appealed.

ISSUE: Can Ramos be held liable for the obligation arising from the accident to which Lopezs property was
involved?

Does common-law relationship, where one party is incapacitated to marry, automatically adopts co-
ownership by virtue of the Civil Code?

RULING: No. Ramos shall not be held liable for the damages. Art.144 pertains only to those common-law
relationships where neither of the parties suffer from any legal impediment to marry. Lopez is legally
married to another woman and is thus incapacitated to marry Ramos.

Co-ownership cannot apply to their relationship. Ramos is not considered a co-owner of the jeepney.
Moreover, the jeepney was registered only under the name of Lopez. Thus, the former is free from any
liability to the damages.
Valdez v. RTC of Quezon City
G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996

FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were married in 1971, which marriage produced five children. In 1992,
petitioner sought the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The
Regional Trial of Quezon City granted said petition and ordered them to liquidate their common properties
pursuant to Article 147 of the Family Code. Said provision states that since the marriage was declared void
ab initio, the rules on co-ownership shall govern.

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the order but was denied.

ISSUE: Does Article 147 of the Family Code apply where the parties are psychologically incapacitated?

RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property
relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or
Article 148, it provides that: when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them
through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

Abing v. Waeyan
G.R. No. 146294, July 31, 2006

FACTS: In 1986, petitioner and respondent cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
Together, they bought a house which was erected owned by another person in Benguet. The tax
declaration of said house was transferred to respondent.

In 1991, respondent left for Korea to work. The house underwent renovation and annexed a sari-sari store.
When respondent returned in 1995, her relationship with petitioner turned sour. They decided to partition
the properties through a memorandum of agreement. Eventually, petitioner demanded respondent to
vacate the annex structure when the latter failed to pay petitioners share in their properties. He argued that
he alone paid for the construction of said annex structure. For her part, respondent claimed that the house
was renovated thru their common funds. Upon trial, the lower court ruled in favor of the petitioner. When
the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter reversed the lower courts decision.

ISSUE: Does the property in question pertain to the exclusive ownership of petitioner?

RULING: No. The Supreme Court held that any property acquired by common-law spouses during their
period of cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained thru their joint efforts and is owned by them in
equal shares. Their property relationship is governed by the rules on co-ownership. And under this regime,
they owned their properties in common in equal shares. Being herself a co-owner of the structure in
question, respondent, as correctly ruled by the CA, may not be ejected therefrom.

San Luis v. San Luis


G.R. No. 134029, February 6, 2007

FACTS: Respondent was a widow of Felicisimo San Luis, the former governor of Laguna, who had three
marriages including hers. She and Felicisimo did not have children. After the latters death, she requested
for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and that letters of administration be issued to her.

One of the children of Felicisimo by first marriage to Merry Lee opposed it because according to him
respondent was only a mistress. He was later on joined by his sisters. Respondent claimed that her
marriage was legal because the other two marriages were annulled due to divorce and death. The trial
court ruled in favor of the San Luis.

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals and the latter reversed the trial courts decision.

ISSUE: Does respondent have legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration?

RULING: Yes. The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to
remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition as Felicisimos
surviving spouse as the surviving wife of Felicisimo or as his co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code
or Article 148 of the Family Code. Hence, the petition was denied and the case was remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.