Inapplicable

The rule is that any and all properties of the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife (Article 160, Civil Code). For this presumption to apply however, the party invoking it must first proved when the property was acquired. This is the rule applied in this case of Caridad.

Caridad was married to Alfredo. They had nine children, four boys and five girls. Their conjugal partnership however was terminated when Alfredo died. Two years after Alfredo’s death, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) over four lots situated in Cebu City were issued in the name of “Caridad, Filipino, of legal age, widow.”

Initially, Caridad used the lots as collateral to borrow money from Sergio. Since she was unable to pay the loan, she sold the lots to Bert in order to pay said loan and prevent foreclosure of the mortgage, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale wherein she signed as the sole absolute owner of the property. Eventually, new TCTs were already issued in the name of Bert.

Thirteen years later however, Rosario’s nine children led by Alfredo, Jr., filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for re-conveyance and annulment of the sale to Bert and cancellation of his TCTs. They claimed, among others, that the subject properties were presumed to be conjugal properties of their parents to which they have their respective shares as their inheritance from their late father Alfredo. Relying on this presumption they didn’t adduce evidence any more to establish when the properties were acquired and whether they were acquired with conjugal funds.

The RTC dismissed the children’s complaint, ruling that the properties were the exclusive properties of their mother Caridad since the TCTs were all under her name as sole and absolute owner. But on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC decision was set aside as the CA declared that said properties were indeed presumed to be the conjugal properties of Caridad and her late husband Alfredo. Was the CA correct?

No. The presumption in favor of the conjugality does not operate if there is no showing as to when the properties alleged to be conjugal were acquired. When the properties are registered in the name of only one spouse and there is no showing as to when they were acquired, this is an indication that the properties belong exclusively to the said spouse.

In this case the conjugal partnership of Caridad and Alfredo was already terminated upon the death of the latter, while the TCTs were issued two years later solely in the name of “Caridad, Filipino, of legal age, widow”. On the other hand no evidence was adduced by the children to establish that the subject properties were acquired during the marriage of their parents or that the same were bought with conjugal funds. So the sale to Bert is valid (Tan vs. Andrade, G.R. 171904, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA, 198).

*      *      *

Notice: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law, Vols. I and II are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, 226, Ortigas Avenue, Greenhill, San Juan, tel no. 7249445, email: [email protected]