FERRER VS.

FERRER

FACTS:
1. Petitioner: Josefa Bautista Ferrer
2. Respondents:
-- Sps. Manuel M. Ferrer and Verginia Ferrer
-- Sps. Ismael M. Ferrer and Flora Ferrer

3. Complaint:
--Payment of:
- conjugal improvements,
-sum of money
-accounting with prayer for injunction and damages.
4. Petitioner alleged:
--widow of Alfredo Ferrer---> half Brother of Manuel and Ismael
--before marriage:
-Alfredo acquired a piece of lot
-He applied for a loan with SSS to build improvements:
*residential house and a 2-door apartment bldg.
--during marriage:
-payment of the loan was made using the couple's conjugal funds.
- from conjugal funds, they constructed a warehouse on the lot.
-Josefa averred that Manuel occupied one door apartment and warehouse

5. September 1991:
--Manuel stopped paying rentals, alleging he had acquired ownership over the property
by virtues of Deed of sale executed by Alfredo in favor of respondents.

6. October 2, 1989:
--Josefa's contention: when her husband was already bedridden, respondents Ismael
and Flora made him sign a document, purported to be his last will and testament.
--document however, was a deed of sale covering Alfredo's lot and improvements.
--Alfredo filed with RTC of Pasig, complaint of Annulment of the said sale against
respondents.

7. June 22, 1993:

--RTC dismissed.
--Deed of Sale are not contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy…
--CA affirmed.

8. In support of her complaint, decision of RTC states:

--the property of greater value=PRINCIPAL
--in this case, the lot is the principal and the improvements the accessories.
--Since Art. 120 of FC provides:
-the rule that the ownership of accessory follows the ownership of the principal,
-then the subject lot with all its improvements became an exclusive and capital
property of Alfredo, WITH AN OBLIGATION TO REIMBURSE THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AT THE TIME OF
LIQUIDATION
 OF THE CP.
-Alfredo has all the rights to sell the subject property by himself without need of
her
consent.

9. Josefa contends:
--The ruling of RTC shows that:
-When Alfredo Died on Sept. 1999, or at the time of the liquidation of the
conjugal partnership, she had the right to be reimbursed for the cost of the
improvements.
--cost of improvements: Php500,000
--1/2 should be reimbursed and paid by respondents as they are now the owners of
Alfredo's
lot.
--prayed that respondents be ordered:
-to render an accounting from September 1991, on the income of the boarding
house
constructed, which they had appropriated for themselves.
-to remit 1/2 as her share.
--moral and exemplary damages, litigation and incidental expenses.

10. Respondents filed:

--Motion to dismiss,
-- cause of action was barred by prior judgement.

11. December 16, 2002

--RTC denied motion to dismiss
--no pronouncement as to the improvements constructed on Alfredo's lot has bee
made
--and payment of petitioner's share in the CP constitutes a separate cause of action.

12. January 17, 2003

--RTC denied for Motion of Reconsideration.

13. August 16, 2004

--Granted the Petition of Manuel, Ismael, and wives.
--Josefa failed to state the cause of action against them: 1. legal right of plaintiff
2. correlative obligation of the
defendant
3. act or omission of the defendant in
violation
of said legal right.
--If these elements are absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to
dismiss..
--ALTHOUGH, JOSEFA HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE REIMBURSED, IT IS NOT
THE PETITIONERS BUT THE ESTATE OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND WHICH HAS
THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE SAME.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has the right to be reimburse by the respondents?

RULING:
1. Petitioner asserts legal right in her favor relying on the decision of the RTC:
--action for annulment of deed of sale, executed by Alfredo in respondents' favor and
covering
the herein subject premises.
--RTC dismissed it, the affirmed by CA
--RTC recognized: she has the right to claim reimbursement from the estate of Alfredo
--But Alfredo had no other property, except for the said lot
--Thus, she has the legal right to claim reimbursement from the respondents..
--Also, complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground if failure to state a cause of action
because respondents have the correlative obligation to pay the value of improvements.

2. Petitioner was NOT able to show that there is an obligation on the part of the
respondents to respect or not to violate her right.

3. Article 120:
--obligation to reimburse rests on the spouse upon whom ownership of the entire
property is vested. There is no obligation on the part of the purchaser of the property, in case
the property is sold by the owner-spouse.
--provides the solution in determining the ownership of improvements that are made on
the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or
efforts of either or both spouses.
--when the cost of the improvement and any resulting increase in value are more than
the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the
spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the
property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement
--otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise
subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.
--The subject property was precisely declared as the exclusive property of Alfredo on
the basis of Article 120 of the Family Code.

4. Respondents:
--are not petitioner’s spouse nor can they ever be deemed as the owner-spouse upon
whom the obligation to reimburse petitioner for her costs rested.
--It is the owner-spouse who has the obligation to reimburse the conjugal partnership
or the spouse who expended the acts or efforts, as the case may be.
--Otherwise stated, respondents do not have the obligation to respect petitioner’s right
to be reimbursed.

5. SC:
--did not find an act or omission on the part of the respondents in violation of the
petitioner's rights.
--validity of the Deed of Sale had already been determined and upheld with finality.
--respondents’ act of acquiring the subject property by sale was not in violation of
petitioner’s rights.
-- NO CORRELATIVE OBLIGATION EXISTS ON THE PART OF THE
RESPONDENTS TO REIMBURSE THE PETITIONER.
 --NO OBLIGATION BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE LAW EXISTS.
--PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
RESPONDENTS, CA WAS NOT IN ERROR IN DISMISSING

6. Petition DENIED. CA AFFIRMED