Presumed conjugal

All properties proven to have been acquired during the marriage are disputably presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. The presumption may be rebutted only with clear, categorical and convincing evidence that it belongs only to one of the spouses and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it. This rule is illustrated in this case of the heirs of Fred and Lorna.

During their marriage, Fred and Lorna acquired a 120 square meter lot in their hometown upon which they built their conjugal home. The subject lot was covered by Tax Declaration (TD) 1151 issued in the name of Fred.

When Lorna died, Fred and their two legitimate children Jun and Luz failed to partition their hereditary shares in Lorna’s estate. Meantime Fred cohabited with Lina and lived at the aforesaid conjugal house.

On February 27, 1960, while still cohabiting with Fred, Lina purchased a 192 sqm lot covered by TD 02115. Later she sold 40.10 of the property leaving her with only 151.9 sqm.

On July 7, 1965, or two days before he died, Fred married Lina. But after his death his heirs also failed to partition among themselves their hereditary shares in his estate.

On September 10, 1973, the TD on Lina’s 151.9 sqm property after being previously issued and cancelled twice was again cancelled and re-issued but the area was increased from 151.9 sq. m. to 336 sqm so as to include the 120 sqm property originally covered by TD 1151 in the name of the late Fred. The said TD contained an annotation at the back stating “Revised as per request of the owner to include the excess area for taxation purposes”. Thus the latest TD issued in the name of Lina was TD 2038 over a land with an area of 336 sqm.

On December 18, 1986, Lina sold the said 336 sqm land to spouses Lito and Ana. Consequently TD 2038 was cancelled and TD 4946 was issued in the name of the spouses.

Sometime in 1987, the spouses Lito and Ana tried to get a Torrens Title over the 336 sqm property but this was opposed by the heirs of Fred particularly her daughter Luz. Later, on November 3, 1989, after the death of Luz, her heirs and the other heirs of her father Fred, filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership with damages against the spouses Lito and Ana and against Lina. Thus the land registration case and the action for recovery were consolidated.

Lito and Ana claimed that the 336 sqm property was the paraphernal property of Lina since Lina purchased it before she married Fred. So Fred was not the owner of the property, and not being the owner, his heirs cannot inherit the same from him. Besides, Lito and Ana argued that they are purchasers in good faith and for value since the property was covered by a tax declaration in Lina’s name when they bought it from her. Were the spouses correct?

No. The property subject matter of the contract of sale between the spouses and Lina is a 336 sqm land that includes not only the lot bought by Lina while she was not yet married to Fred but also the 120 sqm lot purchased by Fred and Lorna during their marriage. Hence, the subject 120 sqm portion sold by Lina to the spouses Lito and Ana is presumed to be the conjugal property of Fred and Lorna.

The only basis of Lina’s ownership over the said 120 sqm portion is a tax declaration that was belatedly revised and issued in her name upon her request after Fred died. But the revision of the tax declaration or the issuance of a new one in her name did not operate to transfer title to subject property in her favor. So the said property remains part of the conjugal property of Fred and Lorna.

When Lorna died, that conjugal partnership with Fred was terminated. Hence one half of the 120 sqm property was automatically reserved in favor of Fred. The other half share of Lorna was transmitted to her heirs Jun and Luz and her husband Fred at 20 sqm each. Upon the death of Fred, his rights over the property, consisting of 20 sqm inheritance from his late wife Lorna and his 60 sqm share in the conjugal partnership were transmitted to his heirs, namely Jun, Luz and his widow Lina. Lina as the surviving spouse is entitled to the same share as that of the legitimate children or one-third each which is 26.6666 sqm.

Considering that Lina owns only 26.6666 of the 120 sqm property and the remaining 93.3333 sqm portion thereof is owned by the legitmate children of Fred, Lina can only validly sell the portion rightfully belonging to her. Hence the spouses Lito and Ana is only a co-owner of the 120 sqm portion up to 26.6666 sqm. To effect physical division of the said property, a judicial or extrajudicial partition is still necessary (Spouses Coja vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. 151153, December 10, 2007).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]