CASE DIGEST ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS (PFR) SUBJECT

1st Year 1st Semester

Student : Guerrero, Grandeur P.G.

Freshman, Juris Doctor
Professor : Hon. Judge Eugene C. Paras

Case Digest, in re: Arts. 74 to 148 of the Family Code (Property

relations between husband and wife)

Title: Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals

[266 SCRA 627, January 27, 1997]

Petitioner: SPS. TRINIDAD S. ESTONINA and PAULINO

ESTONINA

Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS SPS. CELSO ATAYAN and

NILDA HICBAN and CONSUELO VDA. DE GARCIA,
REMEDIOS, ELVIRA, OFELIA, VIRGILIO, MARILOU,
and LOLITA all surnamed GARCIA, and HEIRS OF
CASTOR GARCIA and of SANTIAGO GARCIA, JR.

Ponente: Justice Francisco

Facts:

A lot was owned by Santiago Garcia, who has 9 children and a wife named
Consuelo Garcia. Santiago already died when this controversy arose.
Petitioners, the spouses Estonina, filed a case against Consuelo Garcia and
was able to obtain an attachment over the land. While the case was
pending, the 9 children sold their 1/10 share in the lot to Spouses Atayan,
who are the respondents here. Estonina were able to obtain a favorable
judgment against Consuelo Garcia. The land was sold at public auction and
a TCT was issued in the name of Estonina. Atayan however filed a
complaint for annulment of the sheriff sale and the TCT claiming that they
own 9/10 of the land. The RTC said that the land was presumed to be
conjugal hence Consuelo Garcia owned 50% of the land plus 5% as her
share in the intestate estate of her husband Santiago Garcia. RTC ordered
the amendment of the TCT to show that Estonina owns 55% while Atayan
owns 45%. Both parties appealed. The CA modified the judgment. The CA
held that lot was the exclusive property of Santiago Garcia and not
conjugal. It held that Estonina only owns 1/10 or 10% and Atayan owns
9/10 or 90%.
Issue:

Is the property exclusive or conjugal? (Exclusive share of the deceased

Santiago)

What’s the real share of Estonina and Atayan? (10% and 90%,
respectively.)

Ruling:

SC affirms CA in toto. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to

the conjugal partnership only when there is proof that the property was
acquired during the marriage. Otherwise stated, proof of acquisition during
the marriage is a condition sine qua nonfor the operation of the
presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. Here, Estonino failed to
present any proof that the property was acquired during the marriage.
Estonino merely relies on the certificate of title which was issued during the
marriage. The TCT does not suffice to establish the conjugal nature of the
property. Acquisition of property and registration of title are two different
acts. Registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already
existing. Thus, the property is the exclusive property of the deceased
Santiago and when he died leaving 10 compulsory heirs, each one got 10%
of the lot. Hence, what the Estonino spouses purchased in the public
auction was merely the rights of Consuelo Garcia consisting of 10% of the
lot.