Double deal

All properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless the spouse claiming ownership thereof rebuts it with clear, categorical and convincing evidence. This rule is illustrated in this case of the heirs of Rolly and Tina.

During their marriage, Rolly and Tina acquired a 144 sqm lot in their hometown on which they built their conjugal home. The subject lot was covered by Tax Declaration (TD) 1151 issued in the name of Rolly.

When Tina died, Rolly and their two legitimate children Jun and Luz failed to partition their hereditary shares in said property. Meantime, Rolly met and fell in love with Naty and cohabited with her in the aforesaid conjugal house. During their cohabitation, Naty acquired the lot adjacent to Rolly’s 144 sqm lot with an area of 192 sqm covered by the TD 02115.

Two days before he died, Rolly finally married Naty. But again his heirs Jun, Luz, and second wife Naty also failed to partition among themselves their hereditary shares in his estate particularly the lot covered by TD 1151.

Eight years later, Naty was able to consolidate Rolly’s 144 sqm property covered by TD 1151 and the 192 sqm lot in her name so that the new TD (2038) under her name now contained an area of 336 sqm TD 2038 had an annotation at the back stating: “Revised as per request of owner to include the excess area for taxation purposes.”

After 11 years, Naty sold the 336 sqm property to spouses Lito and Ana. Consequently TD 2038 was cancelled and TD 4946 was issued in the name of the spouses.

When the spouses Lito and Ana tried to get a Torrens Title over the 336 sqm property, the children of Rolly, Jun and Luz opposed it. They also filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership with damages against the spouses Lito and Ana and Naty.

The spouses Lito and Ana however claimed that the 336 sqm property was the paraphernal property of Naty since Naty purchased it before she married Rolly. So Rolly 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 were purchasers in good faith and for value since the property was covered by a tax declaration in Naty’s name when they brought it from her. Were the spouses correct?      

No. The property subject matter of the contract of sale between them and Naty is the 336 sqm land that includes not only the lot bought by Naty while she was not yet married to Rolly but also the 144 sqm lot acquired by Rolly during his first marriage with Tina. Hence, the subject 144 sqm portion sold by Naty to the spouses Lito and Ana is presumed to be the conjugal property of Rolly and Tina.

The only basis of Naty’s ownership over the said 144 sqm portion is a tax declaration that was belatedly revised and issued in her name upon her request after Rolly 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 Rolly and Tina.

When Tina died, her conjugal partnership with Rolly was terminated. Hence one half of the 144 sqm property was automatically reserved in favor of Rolly. The other half share of Tina was transmitted to Rolly and their two children Jun and Luz at 24 sqm each. Upon the death of Rolly, his rights over the property, consisting of 24 sqm inheritance from his late first wife Tina and his 72 sqm share in the conjugal partnership with her, were transmitted to his heirs, namely Jun, Luz and his second wife Naty who, as the surviving spouse was entitled to the same share as that of the legitimate children or one-third each which is 32 sqm.

Considering that Naty owns only 32 sqm of the 144 sqm property and the remaining 102 sqm portion thereof is owned by the legitimate children of Rolly, Naty can only validly sell the portion rightfully belonging to her. Hence the spouses Lito and Ana are only entitled to 32 sqm of the 144 sqm lot. 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: [email protected]