MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied a petition of cosmetic surgeon Victoria “Vicki” Belo to secure a bill of particulars in connection with a petition of his former live-in partner Jose Santos to be declared co-owner of her properties.
In a nine-page decision, the appellate court’s special eighth division ruled that the detailed information being sought by Belo from his former partner was not necessary.
Belo asked the court to compel Santos to submit three specific details: the exact period when they cohabited as “husband and wife”; specific properties she acquired in which he claims a one-half interest and an estimate of their values; and the specific properties which Santos acquired during the period of the alleged cohabitation.
But the CA said Santos need not be precise about the dates since he already indicated in his petition before a lower court that the period of their cohabitation was from 1996 to January 2007.
Santos has a pending petition before a Pasig City regional trial court to declare him co-owner of all the properties Belo had acquired during their cohabitation, pursuant to the provisions of the Family Code.
“The petitioner cannot be caught by surprise by this basic allegation. She knows in her mind whether she cohabited with the respondent during a particular period, and if she did, all that she needs to know are already there. She should be able to prepare an affirmative defense, whether it is in the nature of denying the allegation or qualifying it with more specific dates of her own,” according to the ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Guariña III.
Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas, Jr., and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurred with the ruling.
The CA also noted that Santos in his complaint with the lower court already enumerated several properties that should belong in the co-ownership such as their shareholdings in business corporations, seven houses, three condominium units and savings in certain banks.
The CA said Santos was only uncertain of the extent of the co-owned assets in the possession of his former live-in partner, that is why he is seeking an inventory and accounting of all the assets under her control.
“Again, the office of the pleading as a concise summary of the essential ultimate facts make it impractical to ask for more, for more here already means evidentiary information which is not required from a pleading,” it said.
The appeals court also ruled that Belo cannot compel Santos to declare the properties that the latter acquired during the period of their alleged cohabitation.
“When the petitioner does not state that he had also acquired properties, for the purpose of the complaint, that is it. The ball is in the petitioner’s court to contest the assumption, by alleging in the answer that there are also co-owned assets in the possession of the respondent,” the appellate court said.
Santos filed a petition for declaration of co-ownership of the properties and businesses after Belo broke up with him in 2007 when he refused to sign a waiver of the properties they acquired during the years they were living together.