JUAN SEVILLA SALAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. EDEN VILLENA AGUILA, RESPONDENT.

2013-09-23 | G.R. No. 202370

Napoleon L. Sango III

Facts:

 On September 7, 1985, petitioner and respondent were married. On June 7, 1986

Aguila gave birth to their daughter, but 5 months later, Salas left their conjugal
dwelling and no longer communicated with them
 On October 7, 2003, Aguila filed a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage citing
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. The petition states that
they “have no conjugal properties whatsoever”. The RTC granted the petition and
declared the nullity of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.
 On September 10, 2007, Aguila discovered two properties wherein the registered
owner is “Juan S. Salas, married to Rubina C. Salas.” The properties discovered are (a)
two 200-square-meter parcels of land with improvements located in San Bartolome,
Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-259299-A and TCT
No. N-255497; and (b) a 108-square-meter parcel of land with improvement located in
Tondo, Manila, covered by TCT No. 243373 (collectively, “Discovered Properties”)
 On February 8, 2008, Salas filed an Opposition to the Manifestation alleging that there
is no conjugal property to be partitioned based on Aguila’s petition. Salas claimed that
Aguila waived her right to the Discovered Properties.
 The RTC ruled in favor of Aguila and ordered the properties to be partitioned between
the petitioner and respondent. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling

Issue: Salas seeks a reversal and raises the following issues for resolution:

1. W/N the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s decision ordering the partition of the
parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. N-259299-A and N-255497 in Quezon City and as well as
the property in Manila covered by TCT No. 243373 between petitioner and respondent.

2. W/N the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s decision in not allowing Rubina C. Cortez to
intervene in this case

Ruling:

1st issue : No

Aguila proved that the discovered properties were acquired by Salas during their marriage.
Salas claimed that Aguila waived her right to the Discovered Properties but he failed to prove
the existence and acquisition of the waived properties during their marriage. We held that
Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the union of parties who are legally capacitated and
not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless
declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code, as in this case. Article 147 of the Family
Code provides:
JUAN SEVILLA SALAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. EDEN VILLENA AGUILA, RESPONDENT.
2013-09-23 | G.R. No. 202370
Napoleon L. Sango III

ART. 147. 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.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together
shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and
shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and of the household.

Under this property regime, property acquired during the marriage is prima facie presumed to
have been obtained through the couple’s joint efforts and governed by the rules on co-
ownership. In the present case, Salas did not rebut this presumption. In a similar case where
the ground for nullity of marriage was also psychological incapacity, we held that the
properties acquired during the union of the parties, as found by both the RTC and the CA,
would be governed by co-ownership.

2nd issue: No

On both Salas and Rubina’s contention that Rubina owns the Discovered Properties, we
likewise find the contention unmeritorious. The TCTs state that “Juan S. Salas, married to
Rubina C. Salas” is the registered owner of the Discovered Properties. The phrase “married
to” is merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered owner. Furthermore, Salas did
not initially dispute the ownership of the Discovered Properties in his opposition to the
manifestation. It was only when Rubina intervened that Salas supported Rubina’s statement
that she owns the Discovered Properties. Considering that Rubina failed to prove her title or
her legal interest in the Discovered Properties, she has no right to intervene in this case.