A property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be conjugal even if the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one spouse, unless the contrary is proved (Article 116 Civil Code). This is a rebuttable presumption which may be invoked if there is proof of acquisition of said property during the marriage, regardless of whether it was acquired with conjugal funds or how it was acquired. This is the rule explained and applied in this case.
This case involves the spouses Cardo and Linda who begot two children, Celso and Minda. During their marriage, they acquired a parcel of land consisting of 19,427 square meters situated in a province and covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) which shows Cardo as the registered owner thereof with the inscription of his marriage to Linda. Later on however, Cardo separated from Linda and their children to live with his paramour Perla.
Eventually, Cardo died, followed by Linda just a few days later, leaving their two children Celso and Minda as the sole surviving heirs.
At the time of their deaths, the subject property was in the possession of the couple Ronnie and Tita. So Celso and Minda demanded the surrender of the possession from Ronnie and Tita. However, the latter refused, prompting Celso and Minda to file a complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) against Ronnie and Tita for Recovery of Possession and Title, alleging that the subject property is owned by them as heirs and the possession thereof by Ronnie and Tita was by mere tolerance of their parents.
In their answer before the MCTC, Ronnie and Tita claimed the right of ownership over the subject property. On account of such claim of ownership, the MCTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice to the filing of the said complaint with the proper court.
So later on, Celso and Minda filed the complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Annulment of Document, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, claiming that the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by their father Cardo in favor of Ronnie and Tita is void because the signature of their father is a forgery and there is no conformity or consent given by their mother Linda to the alleged sale.
In their answer, Ronnie and Tita maintained that they are the owners of subject property by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Cardo. They even presented Cardo’s paramour Perla, who testified that during the lifetime of Cardo, he mortgaged and subsequently sold the property to Ronnie and Tita via a Deed of Absolute Sale which was confirmed by Ronnie, who also testified.
After trial the RTC ruled in favor of Ronnie and Tita and dismissed the complaint of Celso and Minda, declaring that the Deed of Absolute Sale is not forged and that it is valid even without the conformity of Linda because it is the exclusive property of Ronnie.
The Court of Appeals, however, on appeal by Celso and Minda, reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and declared that the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ronnie and Tita is null and void and ordering them to surrender the TCT to Celso and Minda and to vacate the premises. Was the CA correct?
The Supreme Court said yes. It is undeniable in this case that the subject property was acquired during the marriage of Cardo and Linda, the parents of Celso and Minda. So, said property is presumed to be conjugal (Article 116 FC). Therefore Ronnie and Tita have the burden to overcome such presumption. Their evidence that the TCT was registered in the name of Cardo married to Linda and that the sale from the previous owner mentioned only Cardo as the buyer is not enough to overcome such presumption, since under Article 116 of the FC, the presumption is created even if the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one spouse only. In fact, such sale from the previous owner also belied Ronnie and Tita’s claim that Cardo acquired the property by succession.
In this case, Ronnie and Tita should have proven that said property was purchased with the exclusive money of Cardo pursuant to Article 109 of the FC. The testimony of Cardo’s paramour Perla could not have established such fact because she herself said that she became his paramour after the acquisition of the property by Cardo. Since Ronnie and Tita have not presented strong, clear and convincing evidence that said property was the exclusive property of Cardo, its sale to them requires the consent of Linda.
In the absence of such consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. Even if Cardo and Linda were already separated from bed and board at the time of supposed sale of subject property by Cardo to Ronnie and Tita, the consent of Linda is still required because the subject property is of conjugal ownership as provide in Article 116 of the FC (Spouses Anastacio vs. Heirs of the late spouses Coloma and Perazo G.R 224572 Aug. 27, 2020).
Given that the subject property was the conjugal property of Cardo and Linda, the CA correctly ruled that its sale by Cardo to Ronnie and Tita without the consent of Linda is void (Spouses Anastacio vs. Heirs of Late Spouses Coloma and Parazo, G.R. 224572, August 27, 2020).
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com